Harper Working on Scrapping the Gun Registry!

[wulf42]

Damn right! It's about time too!! this nonsense has gone on long enough......gun control is an absolute failure the Gang violense is proof of this, billions of dollars were sunk into this all for nothing ! Its time to stop harassing innocent and law abiding gun owning citizens and start changing the laws to make stiffer penalities against Gang members including bringing back the death penality for this garbage....this country is full of weed smoking sissy liberals..and their time has come and gone......its time politicians go after and truly punish the people who are really causing all the gun violence..GANGS! and stop making life difficult for hunters and target shooters.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Edited March 22, 2009 by wulf42

[myata]

Sure. With the economy in firm hands, it's time to spare some attention to the old (but never forgotten or given up) ideological priorities.

[wulf42]

Sure. With the economy in firm hands, it's time to spare some attention to the old (but never forgotten or given up) ideological priorities.

Actually, maybe it's time to spend some of the resources time and money wasted on Gun control and put that back into the economy but instead we keep throwing billions at a complete failure......proven fact! (Vancouver Gang violence)

[Progressive Tory]

Damn right! It's about time too!! this nonsense has gone on long enough......

I just finished reading the piece, and I don't agree. We need a gun registry and 67% of Canadians want a gun registry. He is only drawing attention to his pro-gun ideology, so soon after Garry Breitkreuz made headlines for attending an event where a handgun was being raffled off.

I agree that the gun registry needs to be revamped, but definitely not scrapped.

Harper is urging hunters to contact opposition MPs to scrap the registry, despite the fact that most of their constituents don't want it scrapped, including law enforcement. Police Officers say they use it regularly when answering a call, especially a domestic violence call, to see if there is a gun registered in the household. It doesn't prove there isn't one but is at least a heads up when they KNOW there is.

Harper says: "I challenge you to press these MPs to follow their consciences." They have and while they know that the gun registry won't stop gang violence, it's a useful tool in forcing gun owners to be more careful with these lethal weapons.

I loved the comments from one of the Gun Registry critics:

Jim Magee, a cattle farmer from Drumbo, Ont., near Woodstock, called the registry "aggravation." He said wild animals, like coyotes, will sometimes kill his livestock. "As soon as I get my gun out and get my ammunition that's locked away, the coyote is a mile away," Magee said, who is also a former police officer. "But if I keep (my gun) out and it gets stolen, I'm in trouble."

THERE IS NEVER A SITUATION WHERE YOUR AMMO SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED UP AWAY FROM THE GUN. YOUR GUN SHOULD NEVER BE LEFT AROUND LOADED AND IF THE COYOTE IS GONE, HOT DANG IF HE CAN'T GET ANYMORE OF YOUR LIVESTOCK NOW.

Or how about this one:

Frank DiRocco, an avid hunter and angler from Woodbridge, Ont., who was attending the Federation's 81st annual general meeting where Harper spoke. "Hunters are not the ones on the streets breaking the law -- they're enjoying the sport and the country," he said, adding he wants to teach his 12-year-old son to understand nature

He needs to kill living things to teach his son about nature? Yikes.

This article from a U.S paper is much better and makes a case for a better run registry of ALL guns.

Canada's low crime rate and unique gun-control system have played into Canada's identity as a peaceful, progressive place, in contrast to its neighbor to the south. There is no right to bear arms in the Canadian constitution, so the policy debate is much less heated than in the United States.

Canada created the gun registry in 1995, the result of persistent lobbying after 14 girls were shot at l'École Polytechnique in 1989 in an attack known as the Montreal Massacre.

Catherine Bergeron, whose sister died in the Montreal Massacre, is fighting the repeal of the registry.

"I find it incredible this debate still persists," she said. "Possessing a gun is a privilege, not a right."

Homicide rates have increased, but shootings mostly have been confined to neighborhoods inhabited by gangs. A poll released in May showed that although 67 percent of respondents want gun control, they don't want the current system. The poll also illustrated the geographic split in Canada: Support for some form of control reached 71 percent in the eastern, more urban provinces of Ontario and Quebec but only 51 percent in the western provinces, a traditionally conservative stronghold populated by more hunters and farmers.

Don't scrap it, fix it; but never ever allow one single Canadian to own one single gun and not register it. It reminds them of the danger of leaving a loaded gun in plain sight. Common sense should have told them that, but maybe the chance of it being stolen and used to kill someone, might force them to understand why.

[waldo]

Its time to stop harassing innocent and law abiding gun owning citizens and ..... stop making life difficult for hunters and target shooters.

your linked article suggests your described "innocent and law abiding gun owning, hunters (and farmers)" have no issue with safe storage and acquisition licensing... yet... for some unexplained reason within your linked to article, these same gun owners take extreme exception to registering their guns. Storage and acquisition licensing - good; registration - bad.

could you pick up where your linked article is incomplete? Why is registration a burdensome intrusion making, as you say, "life difficult", while safe storage and acquisition requirements are acceptable?

[Progressive Tory]

Actually, maybe it's time to spend some of the resources time and money wasted on Gun control and put that back into the economy but instead we keep throwing billions at a complete failure......proven fact! (Vancouver Gang violence)

That doesn't prove anything. Gangs use illegal guns and comparing gang violence to the gun registry is like comparing apples and oranges. Two entirely separate issues.

For those Canadians not in gangs, they need to be reminded that guns should be registered, locked up and all ammo stored in a spearate place, preferably miles away from the gun.

If it takes a registry to make them more responsible, then it's doing it's job. It's a shame that the fear of the gun being stolen and used in a crime, overrides a fear that their kids get hold of it and shoot someone.

[Progressive Tory]

your linked article suggests your described "innocent and law abiding gun owning, hunters (and could you pick up where your linked article is incomplete? Why is registration a burdensome intrusion making, as you say, "life difficult", while safe storage and acquisition requirements are acceptable?

And don't forget the guy who finds it an aggravation not to be able to keep a loaded gun handy to kill coyotes, for fear it is stolen and used in a crime. Duh! Hope he doesn't have kids.

[jdobbin]

Actually, maybe it's time to spend some of the resources time and money wasted on Gun control and put that back into the economy but instead we keep throwing billions at a complete failure......proven fact! (Vancouver Gang violence)

By all means introduce the legislation. Make it a confidence motion too.

[wulf42]

I have no problem with strict controls on Handguns and banning automatics like AK-47'S and the like..........but when it comes to shotguns and rifles most hunters i know keep their guns locked up and trigger locked and Ammo stored separately that is common sense....................but what many of you fail to realize Gun control is a corrupt joke...i currently have a registered rifle..under a pol (possesion only) but if i want to get another rifle of the same caliber i have to fork out $100.00 for a course and another 50 or so so i can upgrade to a pal (possesion and acquisition) to get another rifle of the same type i already own.........lol ..if that isn't a joke i don't know what is?

Gun control is fine for Handguns and military weapons....but come on how seriously how many Gangs use a 30-30 or a .30-06 Cal rifle to commit gang violence?

[wulf42]

By all means introduce the legislation. Make it a confidence motion too.

That is why i voted for Harper! .........So he will do it!

[jdobbin]

That is why i voted for Harper! .........So he will do it!

And you are convinced this will get him his majority government?

[Molly]

It's about darned time! A long-gun registry was stupid- misplaced- from the getgo, and the rules connected to it outrageous! So far it's operated as nothing short of harrassment of- yes- the innocent and law-abiding, while having no impact at all on the criminal.

Now let's see if he actually moves on it. After all he's run three campaigns with that as a plank, so far.

A private members bill isn't good enough- it's a do-nothing exercize.

[Argus]

We should all remember the reasoning behind the creation of the long gun registry. The Liberals were being assailed for gun crime, but were disinclined to do anything much about it. Many parts of the Liberal party are more sympathetic to criminals and their poor upbringing than they are to victims, so introducing harsh sentencing laws was not something the party was in favour of. Nor did they have any intention of encouraging judges to impose more severe sentences. Quite the contrary. The Liberal Party generally chose judges who were extremely liberal in their outlook on crime, and who were, quite naturally, tending to give fairly mild sentences for criminal misdeeds.

So someone came up with the idea of registering rifles. They had no idea it would cost the billions it did, of course, but they also knew it would have absolutely zero affect on gun crime. Nevertheless, they introduced it with great fanfare as the solution to gun crime, and the program quickly came apart at the seams. It was never properly designed because, as I've said, it's purpose isn't really do do anything but be a placebo of sorts, to make the then Liberal government look like it was doing something about crime.

The software was designed by incompetents and the processes involved were put in place by senior bureacrats in love with red tape. The registry is wildly inaccurate in every respect, and nearly entirely unreliable. And of course, it ignores the reality that almost all illegal gun crime is done with hand guns, not rifles, and that most weapons are smuggled from the US anyway.

The Liberals, NDP and BQ are fully aware the long gun registry is basically of no use with respect to hindering criminals. However, it is useful for those parties, all on the left of the political spectrum, and none of them much worried about wasting taxpayers dollars, to help them portray the Tories as some kind of American-style gun nuts who want everyone to have machine guns and hand grenades. Thus they steadfastly support the registry, for purely political reasons, regardless of the cost.

[jdobbin]

Now let's see if he actually moves on it. After all he's run three campaigns with that as a plank, so far.

It is probably because he can't win a vote on it and if he attempts to make it a confidence motion, it will result in his defeat and accusations that he was more interested in this law than the economy.

[wulf42]

It's about darned time! A long-gun registry was stupid- misplaced- from the getgo, and the rules connected to it outrageous! So far it's operated as nothing short of harrassment of- yes- the innocent and law-abiding, while having no impact at all on the criminal.

Now let's see if he actually moves on it. After all he's run three campaigns with that as a plank, so far.

A private members bill isn't good enough- it's a do-nothing exercize.

Exactly right!! Has absolutely no effect on Criminals! the flow of automatic weapons continues unabated from the USA....the proof is in the news everyday! While hunters and target shooters have to jump through hoops to make owning a gun legal...........but leave it to the liberals to try to disarm everyone in Canada except the people who should least have them....lol

[Argus]

It is probably because he can't win a vote on it and if he attempts to make it a confidence motion, it will result in his defeat and accusations that he was more interested in this law than the economy.

But at least making it clear that, unlike your party, he really hates throwing money down a well to no purpose.

It's funny how you complain constantly about the deficit - while totally refusing any responsibility on behalf of your party - and at the same time you rabidly attack any kind of cut you perceive the Tories as having made to spending.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Argus

[charter.rights]

It is probably because he can't win a vote on it and if he attempts to make it a confidence motion, it will result in his defeat and accusations that he was more interested in this law than the economy.

Harper is falling in the polls. The latest Nanos poll puts him 3 points behind the Liberals (which with the margin of error equals a virtual tie). The economy is sinking and the former head of the Bank of Canada contradicted him over his projections.

Harper needs a political distraction. I will bet that right after Canadians get engaged in a national debate over scraping the gun registry, he'll try to invent a crisis that will attempt to make the Conservatives shine. Whether the gun registry will be scrapped or not is irrelevant. By trying to appeal to the Reform wing of the Conservative party Harper is floundering with the rest of Canada. Not only is no majority on the horizon, but I suspect a defeat to the Liberals in the next election...which I predict will be sooner than later.

[charter.rights]

But at least making it clear that, unlike your party, he really hates throwing money down a well to no purpose.

It's funny how you complain constantly about the deficit - while totally refusing any responsibility on behalf of your party - and at the same time you rabidly attack any kind of cut you perceive the Tories as having made to spending.

The Liberals are responsible for the deficit you say? Where did the $13 billion surplus go that Harper inherited from the Liberals when they took office? It was spent even before the economic downturn was an idea in the minds of Wall Street. Ah but you forget that Mulroney left them in 1993 with another $28 billion deficit which they turned into a $19 billion surplus by 2000. Seems pretty clear to me who is incapable of managing our public trust.

[Argus]

The Liberals are responsible for the deficit you say? Where did the $13 billion surplus go that Harper inherited from the Liberals when they took office?

The government found it was taking in more money from hard-working Canadians than it was spending, and so it cut taxes so it wasn't doing that. The vast majority of hard-working Canadians - you might know one, perhaps - were quite solidly in agreement with that.

Ah but you forget that Mulroney left them in 1993 with another $28 billion deficit which they turned into a $19 billion surplus by 2000. Seems pretty clear to me who is incapable of managing our public trust.

The deficits were started by a guy called Pierre Trudeau. He had a finance minister named Jean Chretien. He literally doubled spending in his first four years of office, then doubled it again in his next four. He ran the debt up from a few millions to something approaching two hundred BILLION during his time in office, following which the world plunged into a deep, multi-year recession. Interest rates were into double digits. Mulroney had to pay something between $30-40 BILLION dollars every just on the interest on the debt Trudeau and Chretien had run up. With revenues plunging and unemployment soaring, it was a very trying time for them. Had they not had that big Trudeau debt like a lodestone around their necks they could have sailed through it far more easily. As it was they wound up spending almost two hundred billion dollars just on the servicing of the Trudeau debt - which of course, they didn't have to spend, so that money simply got added to the debt, making payments even bigger.

When Chretien came to power he also ran up huge deficits for the first several years in office. It wasn't until the world-wide recession ended, and American orders started coming in, that unemployment began to fall in Canada, and government revenues soared (in no small measure due to the GST the Liberals had fought tooth and nail against). Only then was the deficit eliminated.

Kudos to them for being somewhat good at handling those incoming surge of money. However, I suspect the fact the opposition was by that time, divided and no threat to Chretien played a major role in their lack of incentive to spend cash on anything. And at the same time, health care had greatly deteriorated. The Liberals now had the money in hand to do something about that - but chose not to. Why should they when they weren't threatened at the polls? Best to hold the money in check in case they needed it to buy the electorate if the opposition ever became a threat. That, of course, was exactly what happened. As soon as the opposition became a threat the tight-fisted nature of Liberal finances unraveled and they began spending like Liberals of old.

[jdobbin]

But at least making it clear that, unlike your party, he really hates throwing money down a well to no purpose.

I never supported a central registry in the first place. I believed that the gunowners themselves should have their guns listed with serial numbers on their firearms certificate. That way, law abiding gun owners would only have to produce a list of guns they owned only if the police asked for it.

Having said that, the auditor now says that the registry has manageable operating costs and that police access the database 5000 times a day.

If the Tories believe the registry is not doing its job, I'd like them to ask the Canadian Police Association their opinion of closing it. I'd like to see if a meeting of Canadian Attorney-Generals agree with its closing.

It's funny how you complain constantly about the deficit - while totally refusing any responsibility on behalf of your party - and at the same time you rabidly attack any kind of cut you perceive the Tories as having made to spending.

I am on the record here about how wasteful I thought the registry was in its set up. I thought a more elegant and inexpensive way was possible for data to be recorded. The police already had data on who has a Firearms Certificate.

The Tories will have to explain how removing the database now will serve the police in investigations.

[Molly]

..well, for a start by not misleading them into believing that no guns are present, when they very well might be.

(I hold to the theory that more long guns went underground than ever were registered. In my experience, the folks who never used their guns in any sporting capacity far outnumbered the ones who did/do.)

Mind you, it will certainly remove the warrantless searches, and most of the 'charge the victim' capacities.

[jdobbin]

..well, for a start by not misleading them into believing that no guns are present, when they very well might be.

I think the police assume everyone is a threat and guns could be present in every case. The registry, accessed thousands of times a day by police, acts as another source of intelligence when law enforcement does its job.

Mind you, it will certainly remove the warrantless searches, and most of the 'charge the victim' capacities.

Does a warrantless search also include when police run a plate on a car?

[Argus]

Having said that, the auditor now says that the registry has manageable operating costs and that police access the database 5000 times a day.

If the Tories believe the registry is not doing its job, I'd like them to ask the Canadian Police Association their opinion of closing it. I'd like to see if a meeting of Canadian Attorney-Generals agree with its closing.

How many times a day to the police access Google? Of course the police will access it if it's there (shrug) even keeping in mind how unreliable it is, they will at least check it before going to a house. But I have yet to see any kind of evidence that it's actually of much use.

I am on the record here about how wasteful I thought the registry was in its set up. I thought a more elegant and inexpensive way was possible for data to be recorded. The police already had data on who has a Firearms Certificate.

The Tories will have to explain how removing the database now will serve the police in investigations.

Has anyone actually demonstrated how the database has ever helped in police investigations?

Instead of spending billions on this, what should have been done was tighten up laws on gun smuggling and sale, and then fund sting squads to go into bars and clubs and try to buy guns. I can still remember the story of an newspaper journalist, a very suburban guy with no street knowledge, who was sent down to Ottawa's Rideau street to check the bars and try to buy a hand gun for a story. It took him half an hour.

If it would land you in prison for five years, no bail, no parole, if you were caught selling illegal firearms or smuggling them across the boarder, then ten years for a following offense, I bet it would be a LOT harder to get hold of hand guns and automatic weapons. For that matter, if we would enforce the current laws on carrying firearms, or on using them, that would also have a strong affect. But judges so far have refused.

[Wild Bill]

I agree that the gun registry needs to be revamped, but definitely not scrapped.

I loved the comments from one of the Gun Registry critics:

Jim Magee, a cattle farmer from Drumbo, Ont., near Woodstock, called the registry "aggravation." He said wild animals, like coyotes, will sometimes kill his livestock. "As soon as I get my gun out and get my ammunition that's locked away, the coyote is a mile away," Magee said, who is also a former police officer. "But if I keep (my gun) out and it gets stolen, I'm in trouble."

THERE IS NEVER A SITUATION WHERE YOUR AMMO SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED UP AWAY FROM THE GUN. YOUR GUN SHOULD NEVER BE LEFT AROUND LOADED AND IF THE COYOTE IS GONE, HOT DANG IF HE CAN'T GET ANYMORE OF YOUR LIVESTOCK NOW.

We've always had a gun registry, PT. Just not one as screwy as the Liberal one!

Anyhow, I don't follow your logic at all about the coyotes. Sure after he's gone he won't get any more livestock. Until the next time he gets hungry, of course. You must be a city girl.

The entire point of that Drumbo farmer was that if he shoots the coyote he will get NO repeat offences! If he did things your way he will in effect merely be catering to the coyote's appetite in order to comply with a gun law written by city folks in downtown Toronto.

I guess you must care more about the coyote than the farmer making a living to feed his kids. Perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption. Lots of people have contradictions between what they care about and what flawed logic they support.

Do you have any suggestions on what that farmer should do that would WORK?

Perhaps he should ask the coyote to stick around while he calls for a policeman to deal with it.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Wild Bill

[85RZ500]

The gun registry is typical Liberal BS.

A monumental waste of money, we could destroy every civilian gun in the country and the perps would still get/have them.

I find it amazing that supposedly intelligent pepople can't get their heads around that fact.

As for the LEO's, they have to enter each situation as though someone is armed with some kind of weapon, it's common sense.

I'm not a huge fan of Harper, but score one for him.