No vote scheduled on Tory bill to kill gun registry

[Alta4ever]

Really, we've got to be so harsh and unforgiving to any transgressions of the law, or only selected ones? Isn't it so very funny, how one could advocate strict obeyance (and harsh sanctions) in one sentence, and then call to ignore and deliberately break the law they don't happen to like?

That attitude too is btw very characteristic for social conservatives: everybody has to obey their laws, but not necessarily themselves (because they're answering only to call from the above maybe?). Compare Harpers well documented frolicks with laws (Kyoto, gun registry, "fixed" election date).

Sorry I am not breaking the long gun registry law, because I don't own a fire arm.

[myata]

Then we can all here agree that while it's OK (and moreover, useful and positive) to discuss laws, critisize them and attempt to improve them, the standing law of the land should always be observed.

That doesn't seem to have been the view of the conservatives in this government, that likes to play games with the standing laws, ignoring them, weakening them, undemining with inadequate policies, and so on, while no attempts to actually change the law is being made. These strategies of Mr Harper's have been discussed at length. They come dangerously close to contempt of the rule of law - if one law can be undermined by the government in power, then which one could not? It should certainly not escape the attention of the public, as it's now established as a consistent trend in this government, and it certainly should be a major issue if / then they present their next claim to be elected to govern.

[jdobbin]

No one owes you charity, the government does not owe you services, or living a living.

So you don't believe in government at all then?

[Alta4ever]

Then we can all here agree that while it's OK (and moreover, useful and positive) to discuss laws, critisize them and attempt to improve them, the standing law of the land should always be observed.

That doesn't seem to have been the view of the conservatives in this government, that likes to play games with the standing laws, ignoring them, weakening them, undemining with inadequate policies, and so on, while no attempts to actually change the law is being made. These strategies of Mr Harper's have been discussed at length. They come dangerously close to contempt of the rule of law - if one law can be undermined by the government in power, then which one could not? It should certainly not escape the attention of the public, as it's now established as a consistent trend in this government, and it certainly should be a major issue if / then they present their next claim to be elected to govern.

Don't blame harper because the provincial governments were not enforcing the registry.

[jbg]

I think the RCMP should lay charges against anyone that hasn't registered their long guns and that the Crown should give hefty sentences to the first few for their disobedience of the law.

Definitely.

I know lots of guns that have, on their own volition, aimed themselves at someone and fired.

I also know many hardened criminals that take their duty to register their firearms religiously seriously, even though they may make some poor decisions on the use of the gun.

[jbg]

Don't blame harper because the provincial governments were not enforcing the registry.

That's too bad since the registry is quite obviously an economical and efficient way to stanch violent crime, even if you have Courts that won't jail criminals for any length of time.

[myata]

I also know many hardened criminals that take their duty to register their firearms religiously seriously, even though they may make some poor decisions on the use of the gun.

How many more times do we need to hear this lame excuse? Criminals won't obey the law, neither should/would I? Do we really need them, laws, folks, let's maybe rethink this whole idea, creatively? PM Harper may even show us the lead.

[jbg]

How many more times do we need to hear this lame excuse? Criminals won't obey the law, neither should/would I? Do we really need them, laws, folks, let's maybe rethink this whole idea, creatively? PM Harper may even show us the lead.

Calling it a lame excuse (really a lame argument) doesn't make it lame. Please explain your reasoning.

[myata]

Wow, how much more lame could it go? Is there really anything to be explained here? A criminal won't obey the law, by definition, so how is it the reason for everybody else to do the same? What would be the logical connection? And, if so, what would be the point of having the law? A moral standard? Voluntary guideline? Would it apply also to a case of somebody in extreme need (or want) helping themselves to a bit of your excess (in their view) property? Why, if the law only need to be observed to the extent that it doesn't contradict my personal likes and preferences?

[Alta4ever]

Wow, how much more lame could it go? Is there really anything to be explained here? A criminal won't obey the law, by definition, so how is it the reason for everybody else to do the same? What would be the logical connection? And, if so, what would be the point of having the law? A moral standard? Voluntary guideline? Would it apply also to a case of somebody in extreme need (or want) helping themselves to a bit of your excess (in their view) property? Why, if the law only need to be observed to the extent that it doesn't contradict my personal likes and preferences?

If the registry doesn't stop criminals from using guns and they aren't registering their illegal firearms what is the point of it other then to punish law abiding citizens.

[jbg]

Wow, how much more lame could it go? Is there really anything to be explained here? A criminal won't obey the law, by definition, so how is it the reason for everybody else to do the same? What would be the logical connection? And, if so, what would be the point of having the law? A moral standard? Voluntary guideline? Would it apply also to a case of somebody in extreme need (or want) helping themselves to a bit of your excess (in their view) property? Why, if the law only need to be observed to the extent that it doesn't contradict my personal likes and preferences?

I disagree entirely with you.

The purpose behind regulating guns, in theory, is to reduce the frequency or severity of crime. The problem with the law is that the law will operate only on law-abiding people. The people who are likely to misuse a firearm, i.e. to commit a murder or other violent crime, are not law-abiding people.

Can you point to any purpose for the law if it impacts only on good citizens?

Even more seriously, to the extent that it renders unarmed almost all decent citizens it reduces the risk to a violent criminal that he or she may get a nasty surprise. Criminals typically seek either booty or the death of someone, not armed combat with their victim.

[myata]

As I already said, it's OK (and even commendable) to critisize the law, call for its change or complete cancellation, and have discussions, manifiestations and so on, for that purpose. Of course, any arguments can be used, and of those I only have time to discuss those that are 1) new and 2) factually correct, and because none of what was stated falls into either category, not to say, both, it doesn't appear that we're going to discuss the law itself, at least at this time.

However it should be noted that the practice of ignoring, clearly and intentionnally, the standing law of the land by the government that is supposed to protect and enforce it, is most despicable, and if unchecked could result in a deterioriation of the foundations of democracy that is based on the rule of law. If one can have some kind of reason to not observe the law because they don't like it, I simply can't see how it could not be turned any way possible. The law that is not universally applied, is not a law at all. We'll be back to square one, squabbling, fighting and trying to force our way upon each other.