Gun Registry about to go bye bye!

[Smallc]

Why do I need proof for my opinion on what he meant by calling the gun registry ineffective?

Maybe it is....

[jdobbin]

Maybe it is....

To whit I said that when Harper gets a majority, he will end the registry in favour of something else.

[Smallc]

And you still have no proof of that. I'll go further than that - You're making it up and in fact what you are doing borders on lying.

[jdobbin]

And you still have no proof of that. I'll go further than that - You're making it up and in fact what you are doing borders on lying.

Why do I need prove for my own opinion on what he will do based on what Harper has said in the past?

You probably would have called me a liar back in 2006 when I said Harper was going to call an election rather than be bound by his own legislation if he saw his chance. Ans you would have been wrong then too.

[Smallc]

You're presenting your own opinion as if it is some kind of fact, as you often do. I don't agree with your opinion, because there's no evidence to support it. Despite that reality, you continue to insist that it's true.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

You're presenting your own opinion as if it is some kind of fact, as you often do. I don't agree with your opinion, because there's no evidence to support it. Despite that reality, you continue to insist that it's true.

I insist my opinion is true. Somehow you think that is lying. It is time to get a grip.

I went through this with people in 2006 on Harper calling an election. I was told it was a lie, impossible, not going to happen. Well, look how that turned out.

I suspect that if Harper did end the handgun registry, you would find some reason to think it was brilliant.

[Smallc]

It might very well be brilliant, I don't know and I really don't have an opinion on it. That said, we're not talking about handguns right now...well...you are...but I'm really not sure why.

[jdobbin]

It might very well be brilliant, I don't know and I really don't have an opinion on it. That said, we're not talking about handguns right now...well...you are...but I'm really not sure why.

Think I said that with a majority, the Tories would get rid of that registry as well. My view on that is based on Harper's view on the effectiveness of the registry in general.

You seemed to think my opinion on something is a lie. I have already shown a few times in these forums what Harper believes should be the alternative to a registry.

Or perhaps you think that the idea of Harper wining a majority is a lie.

We have often heard Tories say they can't be Tories with a minority.

Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

Sure be nice if you guys could get off your partisan pedestals and come up with something constructive. This whole issue has been a total f*** *p from the word go and I don't see it changing regardless of who is calling the shots.

[Smallc]

Partisan pedestals? My argument has nothing to do with partisanship. I am what most people would consider a lefty don't forget. I simply don't see much value in continuing the registry. It should be eliminated. That's it. There are better things that we can do, such as improving licensing and border protection.

[jdobbin]

Sure be nice if you guys could get off your partisan pedestals and come up with something constructive. This whole issue has been a total f*** *p from the word go and I don't see it changing regardless of who is calling the shots.

Think I already said the issue should have been reviewed to see exactly how useful and effective it was.

The fact that the Tories sat on a report about the registry and then dismissed it out of hand shows they were not interested.

The partisan pedestal you take is that they are all bad in Ottawa. Fine. Then you should run if you are the last honest man in Canada.

[Triple M]

Harper himself has said that the registration in ineffective. Are you saying that he won't end the handgun registry in favour of punishment and policing?

When he said this he stressed the long gun portion I could be wrong but I think in the 06 election campaign he said he would maintain the existing handgun registry and bans on all currently prohibited weapons.

Based on the official 2006 Conservative Party platform, and also on information posted on the Conservative Party’s website as of January 19, 2006.

So, once again I ask why would the Government scrap the handgun part of the registry which has been in tact since the 30's. Conservatives have only had issues with the long gun portion of the registry.

[jdobbin]

When he said this he stressed the long gun portion I could be wrong but I think in the 06 election campaign he said he would maintain the existing handgun registry and bans on all currently prohibited weapons.

I have said that Harper has long indicated he believes the registries are ineffective.

So, once again I ask why would the Government scrap the handgun part of the registry which has been in tact since the 30's. Conservatives have only had issues with the long gun portion of the registry.

Not exactly true. There have been many in the Conservative party who have lobbied against controls on legal ownership including handguns.

If Harper believes registries are ineffective, why bother keeping them?

[Triple M]

I have said that Harper has long indicated he believes the registries are ineffective.

Not exactly true. There have been many in the Conservative party who have lobbied against controls on legal ownership including handguns.

If Harper believes registries are ineffective, why bother keeping them?

But Harper has also said he would maintain the handgun registry and bans on restricted guns. Why would that change under a majority situation? because of a minority in the party who want to get rid of it. I just don't buy that argument, if the Conservatives get a majority they are going to look to maintain it not lose support by pushing through controversial agendas.

[Argus]

Why act like a donkey all the time? The Tory promise is to get rid of the gun registry. It isn't a secret.

It wasn't limited to only getting rid of one part of it. It was the entire registry.

There has been no serious political move (no moves at all that I'm aware of) from any political party to abolish the restricted weapons registry in the decades since it has been in place. Nor have I heard even a murmur of a suggestion of that desire from Conservatives.

So I'm going to take this is something you are simply lying about in order to try to scare people into voting for your no-good, corrupt party of self-serving leaches.

[Argus]

Law enforcement officials love the long gun registry, but not for the reasons advertised. They access it frequently, but not for purposes of solving crimes. They're accessing it so that they know if there are guns on site when they get called to routine calls. Register your rifle or shotgun, and you're basically asking the police to assume you're "armed and dangerous" if they're ever called to your home.

Any police officer who DOESN'T assume that isn't fit to be a police officer, regardless of what the registry tells him. The registry is highly innacurate, and of course, anyone with any illegal weapon isn't about to register it.

From what I understand the reason high numbers are given for how often the police check the registry is that whenever a police officer checks the national crime database to look up a suspect's name or other information, a check of the gun registry is automatically made by the system and that information is included. So every police officer, even the ones who think the gun registry is a dumb joke, will be checking the gun registry all the time simply because he's checking for information on a suspect. In that respect, stating, as the proponents do, that police checked the registry X millions of times is more than slightly misleading.

[DrGreenthumb]

It will stall and perhaps die in the Senate.

The surprsing thing was that 12 NDP MPs voted for it.

It is not like Jack to allow anything but obedience.

Yeah Jack really keeps his MP's on a short leash, unlike Harper who lets his MP's express their opinions on anything and vote however they want eh? pffffft! Get a life.

[jdobbin]

So I'm going to take this is something you are simply lying about in order to try to scare people into voting for your no-good, corrupt party of self-serving leaches.

Please. Harper has been talking about the ineffectiveness of the registries for a long time. I have seen over a number of years (even before the long gun registries) Tory riding meetings where they complained about the restrictions on legal gun owners and how the book should be thrown at people who commit crimes.

Even in 2006, Harper offered up his alternatives to registration. Their first target was long guns but the non-progressive side of the Conservatives have long argued about the effectiveness of registration and pushed harder for sentencing on gun use rather than gun ownership.

I don't know where Harper stands personally on the issue of registration. He once spoke in support of registration as being the wishes of his constituents but he has also argued about how effective it is.

It doesn't take a leap to say that if long gun registration is useless to police because they have to suspect a gun in any case, why is the handgun registration anymore effective? This is what the Tories are arguing. They say registration is useless and have been dismissive of police use of it.

So am I lying in assuming that if the Tories get their majority to think that the handgun registry is next based on the arguments I have heard over many years now about its effectiveness?

Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

Deleted

Edited November 6, 2009 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Any police officer who DOESN'T assume that isn't fit to be a police officer, regardless of what the registry tells him. The registry is highly innacurate, and of course, anyone with any illegal weapon isn't about to register it.

And this is why I believe Tories have gone at the angle of the effectiveness of the registration.

If you yourself believe it is useless, why is the handgun registration any different? And why would the Tories keep it?

[Wilber]

Partisan pedestals? My argument has nothing to do with partisanship. I am what most people would consider a lefty don't forget. I simply don't see much value in continuing the registry. It should be eliminated. That's it. There are better things that we can do, such as improving licensing and border protection.

I forgot myself, there are no partisan lefties.

[jdobbin]

But Harper has also said he would maintain the handgun registry and bans on restricted guns. Why would that change under a majority situation? because of a minority in the party who want to get rid of it. I just don't buy that argument, if the Conservatives get a majority they are going to look to maintain it not lose support by pushing through controversial agendas.

If the argument has been the effectiveness of the registration, he can argue that the handguns are equally useless and a danger to police. Toss in more measures against gun use in a crime and I think a majority cushions him from long term problems.

Tom Flanagan has called it incremental conservatism. if the goal is to get rid of gun registration, pick it apart a bit at a time.

Or do you think this is completely beyond the realm of possibility?

[noahbody]

I have said that Harper has long indicated he believes the registries are ineffective.

Harper did support the long gun registry that was going to cost $2 million.

Not exactly true. There have been many in the Conservative party who have lobbied against controls on legal ownership including handguns.

Citation?

[jdobbin]

Harper did support the long gun registry that was going to cost $2 million.

And long argued about effectiveness.

Citation?

For things I observed at Conservative MPs meetings with constituents?

[Triple M]

And long argued about effectiveness.

For things I observed at Conservative MPs meetings with constituents?

Which conservative MP's????