Gun Control

segnosaur · September 23, 2010

The police have never said they need the registry. The police brass have said the registry can be useful in certain cases....

One must remember there is a certain mentality among police. Police once campaigned to close down pool halls, as notorious dens of iniquity. They wanted arcades closed down in the eighties. They want the lowest possible speeds for traffic and the highest possible fines. They seek control and order in all things.

Here's something to think about...

Which organization said (1n the early 1980s) that : ...A Canadian charter of rights and freedoms enshrined in a constitution is neither necessary nor desirable?

Was it:

A: Canadian Shooting Sports Association

B: National Firearms Association of Canada

C: Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police

The answer is, of course, C. So, the organization that appears to be the most vocal in its support for the gun registry at one point didn't want us to have an enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Granted, I'm pretty sure any police chief that was involved in the early 1980s has long since retired, but still, it does show that perhaps the "Police Chiefs" can and do make questionable decisions.

See: http://www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf (first paragraph)

madmax · September 23, 2010

I agree that the Tories are risking seats in Quebec over the issue.

But why exactly are you suggesting Quebec voters would automatically swing over to the Liberals or NDP? Quebec voters have shown (through multiple elections) that they are willing to support the Bloc (even if they can't form the government). The important thing is not "can you form the government" but "Can you represent our interests". Voting for the party that forms the government may not be beneficial if the party has seats in other provinces (which must also receive the government's attention.).

I don't see any ridings where the CPC stand to gain traction. It will generate huge funds for which I think this is the ultimate goal. I have always considered the Gun Registry the issue that keeps on giving.

If there is 5 seats for pickup their is 10 they are going to lose.

Thats the problem with Wedge Issues.

The Anti Registery lobby has been constant. The Pro Registery Lobby is just waking up.

The two main parties are using the registery to exploit an Urban/Rural divide.

Both parties have had the power to fix the registery (The LIberals are guilty of ignoring Rural Gun owners Legitimate Grievances for 12 years), in the case of the CPC and 2 terms, they have had ability to deny funding to it, or bring it forward as a Government instead as a private members bill.

Even in the recent Conservative survey sent out ironically to Conservative supporters they indicate eliminating the Registery and making stricter licencing requirements.....

Kinda like double speak to appeal to everyone.

With the many real problems facing the country the Conservatives are going to use this to hide their dismal track record.

My personal belief is that wedge politics is going to come up short again.

M.Dancer · September 23, 2010

The two main parties are using the registery to exploit an Urban/Rural divide.

My hunch is there are more seats to be won in the rural ridings than there are to be lost in urban ridings..the liberals already have a deathgrip on the major cities and won't lose there....but provinces with long traditions of hunting, like Newfoundland are up fo grabs...and of course rural Ontario and Quebec...

P. McGee · September 23, 2010

My hunch is there are more seats to be won in the rural ridings than there are to be lost in urban ridings..

Probably true, since for most urban people it has no direct impact. Also, city-bashing is not something many people get very offended over, since everyone has some gripe about cities.

Smallc · September 23, 2010

no - Bill C-391 was not introduced by a cabinet minister... it was introduced by a back-bencher... Hoeppner was her name - right? It was a private members bill - not a government bill.

And since I didn't mention that bill.

as for the Senate route, why would Harper choose to push something through the 'house of sober second thought'?

A bill can be introduced in either house.

Dave_ON · September 23, 2010

My hunch is there are more seats to be won in the rural ridings than there are to be lost in urban ridings..the liberals already have a deathgrip on the major cities and won't lose there....but provinces with long traditions of hunting, like Newfoundland are up fo grabs...and of course rural Ontario and Quebec...

Hmmm I doubt the CPC will win seats in NF anytime soon. Most Newfs are still smarting from the equalization fiasco Harper generated. Not to mention Danny Williams is very well liked in NF and is quite vocally anti-Harper, it is after all the birth place of the ABC campaign. This combined with the lack of response in NF from the Feds on the Hurricane Igor.

PIK · September 23, 2010

I don't see any ridings where the CPC stand to gain traction. It will generate huge funds for which I think this is the ultimate goal. I have always considered the Gun Registry the issue that keeps on giving.

If there is 5 seats for pickup their is 10 they are going to lose.

Thats the problem with Wedge Issues.

The Anti Registery lobby has been constant. The Pro Registery Lobby is just waking up.

The two main parties are using the registery to exploit an Urban/Rural divide.

Both parties have had the power to fix the registery (The LIberals are guilty of ignoring Rural Gun owners Legitimate Grievances for 12 years), in the case of the CPC and 2 terms, they have had ability to deny funding to it, or bring it forward as a Government instead as a private members bill.

Even in the recent Conservative survey sent out ironically to Conservative supporters they indicate eliminating the Registery and making stricter licencing requirements.....

Kinda like double speak to appeal to everyone.

With the many real problems facing the country the Conservatives are going to use this to hide their dismal track record.

My personal belief is that wedge politics is going to come up short again.

Why call a campaign promise a wedge issue. This could have been ended yesterday, but the libs and dippers said no, so this will continue on.

PIK · September 23, 2010

My hunch is there are more seats to be won in the rural ridings than there are to be lost in urban ridings..the liberals already have a deathgrip on the major cities and won't lose there....but provinces with long traditions of hunting, like Newfoundland are up fo grabs...and of course rural Ontario and Quebec...

And harper came to williams aid with 110 million dollars, so I would say harper is in danny's good books again,and if danny says yes to harper there are 4 seats right there.

capricorn · September 24, 2010

After a week of high political drama on Parliament Hill, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have inched upward in popularity among Canadian voters, while two of the opposition parties — particularly the NDP — have dropped in public support, a new poll has found.
The nationwide survey conducted this week for Postmedia News and Global Television found that if an election occurred today the Conservatives would receive support from 35 per cent of decided voters. That's up one percentage point from a poll taken two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff would garner 29 per cent, down two percentage points. The Liberals have particularly lost their edge in Ontario, where they were once well ahead of the Tories but are now tied with them.

The NDP, under leader Jack Layton, has the support of just 12 per cent of decided voters — a significant drop of four points. The NDP is now tied with Elizabeth May's Green party

---

"The NDP is caught in a squeeze play over the gun control issue," said Wright. "Clearly, they have had some difficulties in terms of their urban and rural vote."

http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+advance+slightly+after+politically+volatile+week+Poll/3575907/story.html

In post 293, I said the NDPs poll numbers would hit a low of 10%. They're not there yet, but you could just see this coming.

scribblet · September 25, 2010

This aboriginal wants an exemption from the long gun registry, because it's an unreasonable burden on First Nations people trying to fulfill their treaty rights. - say what! Okay I can't begin to understand how this would violate their treat rights, however, should any group be exempt?

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/First+Nations+group+demands+long+registry+exemption/3574390/story.html#ixzz10aJzncS1

Slim · September 27, 2010

Scribblet:

I would argue that when it comes to public safety, Aboriginal rights may have to be trumped, especially when the gun registry is hardly a huge barrier to gun ownership.

This whole gun registry debate kind of got me worked up: all this furor and media frenzy over what SHOULD be a straight-forward vote. All the MPs should have been allowed to vote as their constituents would want, regardless of the party line. I'm all for scrapping the registry (as gun owner, I would like to see other solutions instead) but I would rather keep it or toss it based upon what Canada wants, not on the whim of politicians' power struggles.

But of course, then it wouldn't be Canadian politics, would it?

capricorn · September 27, 2010

All the MPs should have been allowed to vote as their constituents would want, regardless of the party line. I'm all for scrapping the registry (as gun owner, I would like to see other solutions instead) but I would rather keep it or toss it based upon what Canada wants, not on the whim of politicians' power struggles.

It's bad enough that the party line forced MPs to vote against the Bill. But the party line was supplemented by another argument, that the police want and need the registry. In fact, some MPs who voted against the Bill cited pressure from the police to keep the registry. Who sets policy? MPs elected by citizens or the police?

The relationship between citizens and the law is magnificently simple. Citizens are the law. Not the bureaucracy, not the police, not the pundits: Citizens. It’s all right for people to take the law into their own hands because in a free society the law is, in fact, in their hands. It is the people who delegate the power of law enforcement to the police, not the other way around.
The police may think they license citizens to carry arms, but they don’t. It’s citizens who license the police. They license them to carry arms, to enforce the law, to investigate crime, to serve and protect. All power flows from the public to the authorities, not the other way around.

In free societies, that is. There are societies where power flow is reversed. They’re called police states.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/25/george-jonas-armed-citizens-should-look-to-their-own-security/

As an example, Liberal MP Keith Martin, whose previous consistent position was to scrap the registry, now thinks it's fine that what the police want trumps what his constituents want and what he stood for in the past.

"I said if the choice is voting for what the police need to keep themselves safe and supporting the registry, and losing my job, versus going against what the police need for their safety, voting against the registry and gaining my job, the choice is simple. I'll support the police and lose my job," he told The Hill Times last week after the dramatic House vote. "The police put their lives in harm's way for us and I think that we have a moral responsibility to make sure that we give them what they need to protect themselves. It would be immoral and unjust otherwise."

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/legislation-09-27-2010

What is immoral and unjust is turning your back on what the majority of your constituents tell you they want, and reversing your position to equip the police. Should the will of the people be set aside to serve the purpose of the police? I think not. In the same vein, fear and tears don't cut it as a basis on which to build national policies.

M.Dancer · September 27, 2010

This aboriginal wants an exemption from the long gun registry, because it's an unreasonable burden on First Nations people trying to fulfill their treaty rights. - say what! Okay I can't begin to understand how this would violate their treat rights, however, should any group be exempt?

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/First+Nations+group+demands+long+registry+exemption/3574390/story.html#ixzz10aJzncS1

Hmmmm...farmers, commercial fishers...?

Saipan · September 29, 2010

Okay I can't begin to understand how this would violate their treat rights, however, should any group be exempt?

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/First+Nations+group+demands+long+registry+exemption/3574390/story.html#ixzz10aJzncS1

Under Canadian racist laws they can, and they are. Even in boating licences. For "aboriginals" it's just voluntary.

Saipan · September 29, 2010

"The ideal citizen, of a tyrannical state, is the man or woman who bows

in silent obedience in exchange for the status of a well cared for herd

animal. Thinking people become the tyrant's greatest enemy."

- - - - - Claire Wolfe

Saipan · September 29, 2010

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti Gun

Mentality By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

PeterFoxy · September 29, 2010

I think normal persons shouldn't be able to just buy a gun.. I live in germany and I'm sure we have less crime with dead persons here, you can't just go to the store and buy a gun.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2010

I think normal persons shouldn't be able to just buy a gun.. I live in germany and I'm sure we have less crime with dead persons here, you can't just go to the store and buy a gun.

As well as telling no tales, dead men commit no crimes.

Mr.Canada · September 29, 2010

I think normal persons shouldn't be able to just buy a gun.. I live in germany and I'm sure we have less crime with dead persons here, you can't just go to the store and buy a gun.

You cannot just go into a store a but a gun in Canada either. We have strict regulations when it comes to buying/selling guns/ammo.

You're most likely getting Canada and the USA mixed up. However even in many states in the US it is getting harder to purchase firearms/ammo. It's a common misconception that anyone can go into a gun shop in the US and purchase a firearm, this just isn't true. I call this Michael Moore syndrome.

Saipan · September 29, 2010

I think normal persons shouldn't be able to just buy a gun.. I live in germany and I'm sure we have less crime with dead persons here, you can't just go to the store and buy a gun.

Fortunately we don't live in Germany (not so long ago they were also disarming population of other countries) or living in Japan (same shyte)

So you say "normal persons" shouldn't be able to buy firearms. How about abnormal persons? Why would guns make Germans commit crimes?

How come I could buy rifle and shotgun simply by phone call to Simpson's Sears when I came to Canada 41 years ago and crime was very low? It was very low in 40's, 50's and 60's. The "Happy Days"

Now the mere word "gun" makes half the liberals paranoid. Why in Switzerlan they don't have that kind of problems? And shooting is the national sport.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Saipan

guyser · September 29, 2010

I think normal persons shouldn't be able to just buy a gun.. I live in germany and I'm sure we have less crime with dead persons here, you can't just go to the store and buy a gun.

virtually the same murder rate.....but with all that beer drinking you're just lousier shots when drunk.

Saipan · September 30, 2010

REGISTERED handguns were confiscated from lawabiding citizen in the UK. Gun crime went up.

(UK)Police issue internet gun warning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3242371.stm

We don't intend to follow UK or Australia.

M.Dancer · September 30, 2010

REGISTERED handguns were confiscated from lawabiding citizen in the UK. Gun crime went up.

(UK)Police issue internet gun warning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3242371.stm

We don't intend to follow UK or Australia.

Are we to be impressed that you include link that does not support your claim? The articler says nothing about handguns...and the correlation between the ban and crime is spurious at best given that the ownership was never more than 0.1% of the population...

You whiffed Grasshopper....

Edited September 30, 2010 by M.Dancer

Saipan · September 30, 2010

Are we to be impressed that you include link that does not support your claim? The articler says nothing about handguns...and the correlation between the ban and crime is spurious at best given that the ownership was never more than 0.1% of the population...

You whiffed Grasshopper....

When you're losing debate try name calling

1) What "claim" is that?

2) Where is your evidence of 0.1% of population?

3) Are you denying handgun confiscation in UK and all REGISTERED hunting pump and semi in Australia? YES OR NO?

M.Dancer · September 30, 2010

1) What "claim" is that?

REGISTERED handguns were confiscated from lawabiding citizen in the UK. Gun crime went up.

You imply correlation whre none is warranted. You could easily imply and just as incorrectly imply global warming and crime are related.

2) Where is your evidence of 0.1% of population?

A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in the UK (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-24

So sad....

3) Are you denying handgun confiscation in UK and all REGISTERED hunting pump and semi in Australia? YES OR NO?

Yes and No...

All registered semis and pumps in Australia were not confiscated, but you need a valid reason to have one.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Current_Australian_firearm_laws

Keep trying grasshopper...