Gun Control

[eyeball]

Wrong the reg was created before lepine, the libs just used those poor dead women to push it thru.Mental illness which is overlooked in this country was the problem, not the gun. This man was bent oon killing and if every gun was reg, it still would have happened.

I know, that's why real gun control is the only ticket i.e storage at public armouries etc.

Yes, mental illness certainly has been and still is a very big problem in this country. There was and has never been anything stopping the politicians from dealing with it, well, nothing that is except public attitudes.

Look people, the reason we have Mental Health and Addiction workers should be obvious. During the years I've advocated for the mentally ill it's become all to obvious to me who is more likely in our society to say fuck both the druggies and the mentally ill. I've locked horns with them and there is no doubt who these people are most likely to vote for.

I have very little sympathy for the Conservative's issues with guns, crime, drugs and mental illness and even less with the cold-hearted approach and policies they propose. That said I have even less sympathy for a chicken-hearted opposition that is letting their fear of appearing soft cause them to overlook more important things, like mental illness for example.

Here's something to consider, we could have up to a million people suffering from dementia in this country in the next few decades and no one is apparently any more worried about that or how many millions of guns are out there. It's...demented.

Edited September 23, 2010 by eyeball

[August1991]

I'm sure it will be sooner then that. This is the spark the will fire the conservative base again. It may push a few NDP seats the conservatives way now.

This gun debate is typical Harper: whatever way it goes, Harper wins. I'm surprised that the Harper Haters haven't figured this out by now.

If the gun registry had been defeated, Harper wins. And now that it still lives, Harper still wins.

The fact is that people who want to abolish the registry have stronger feelings than those who want to keep it. Ignatieff/Layton win nothing here since opponents of the gun registry just don't feel strongly enough. Harper, on the other hand, will gain votes from the NDP, Liberals and even Bloc. Urban Canadians like Duceppe, Layton and Ignatieff just don't get this. (I'll give credit to Layton for making an attempt.)

Moreover, no one seems to have noticed that Harper is placing himself on one side of an issue that divides Canadians 50/50 while Ignatieff/Duceppe/Layton are sitting on the other side. Talk about wedge politics! (The Liberals have played this game since at least Laurier so I have no sympathy for their incompetence, or squeals of injustice.)

----

I read Karl Rove's book during the summer and Harper's move with this private member's bill is straight out of Rove. I bet that Harper even knows which ridings the Liberals/NDP (and even the Bloc) are at risk of losing because of this fiasco.

PS. Now that this private member's bill has been defeated, we need a new thread for this issue. IMHO.

Edited September 23, 2010 by August1991

[capricorn]

Harper and Hoeppner started the ball rolling to whip their supporters into them vs us mode.

Us versus them politics. Now, it's called wedge politics. Expect to hear a lot about wedge politics in the days and weeks to come.

“The person really celebrating tonight is Stephen Harper,” said Layton. “But Canadians are sick and tired of cynical wedge politics. They are looking for a different kind of leadership.”

http://www.canadaviews.ca/2010/09/22/new-democrats-vote-to-fix-long-gun-registry/

Ottawa MP David McGuinty says Harper is using the registry “to have a wedge-politics debate to pick off eight to 10 ridings.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/politics/archive/2010/09/14/libs-say-harper-using-gun-registry-quot-to-pick-off-eight-to-10-ridings-quot.aspx

Mr. Layton moved to counter that analysis Monday in a speech that attempts to turn his divided caucus into a positive message that his party is broad-based and rejects the “wedge” politics of the Liberals and Conservatives on the registry issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fourth-new-democrat-switches-vote-on-gun-registry/article1705871/

The escalating furore over the fate of Canada’s long gun registry starkly illustrates how distorted a public issue can become when it gets caught in the jaws of ideological wedge politics.

http://www.capebretonpost.com/Opinion/Editorial/2010-09-08/article-1735054/Gun-geography-badly-distorted/1

As some commentators have noted, the registry is the perfect "wedge" issue for the Conservatives, because they are the only federal political party that backs its demise.

http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/politics/archive/2010/09/20/in-politics-not-all-registries-are-created-equal.aspx

Etc.

He suppose the PM on Canada and not sided with one side or the other, epecially in a very serious topic of gun control.

Yes guns are a serious issue. But a Prime Minister is still part of a political party and advocates for the policies of that party, especially when it was part of an election platform. Dismantling the gun registry was a Conservative policy from day one. Every other PM has stood up for party election policies, unless of course they broke their election promises.

This PM is definitely a divider of this country!

A divider, as in wedge politics, us versus them. Scary and hidden agenda haven't worked so well. Time for a new meme, wouldn't you say?

[scribblet]

Yup, but I wonder how much money they get for Canadian issues is from Canadian donors, registered third parties have to use Canadian donations.

The Harper haters are only parroting the media narrative on whatever the issue of the day is and Harper's reactions etc., they repeat it so often they come to believe it. Some of the stuff I read on a particular radical left wing sites has me wondering if they are living on another planet (and some on here).

BTW, I started sending out emails re: Cukier and grants etc. this is the only reply I've received so far

Le français suit. Cute eh... bet it was never even read, it's just an automated response. LOL

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email.

I appreciate hearing from the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier. Rest assured that your correspondence will be reviewed and acted upon should it be required.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Mauril Bélanger, M.P.

Ottawa—Vanier

* * *

Ceci est un accusé de réception de votre courriel.

Il me fait plaisir d’être à l’écoute des commettants d’Ottawa—Vanier. Soyez assuré(e) que votre correspondance sera examinée et nous y donnerons suite au besoin.

Merci de m’avoir écrit.

Cordialement,

L’honorable Mauril Bélanger, député

Ottawa—Vanier

[Molly]

Time for a new meme, wouldn't you say?

Well yeah... but this is hardly 'new'.

[scribblet]

And you thought the Tories were going to use the issue hmmmm didn't take long for the Libs to get at it.

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2010/09/that-didnt-take-long.html

the Liberals were already playing politics with the result and sent out a fund-raising email.

[waldo]

Yes guns are a serious issue. But a Prime Minister is still part of a political party and advocates for the policies of that party, especially when it was part of an election platform. Dismantling the gun registry was a Conservative policy from day one.

part of an election platform... policy from day one? Then why not make it a government bill? Why dick around trying to introduce a bill through the Senate... why the end-around with a so-called private members bill? Obviously, because it's a Conservative money-maker that the rubes empty their wallets for - hey now!... I read your earlier comment about sending in more money (when you roll over in the morning and Harper's gone... don't you feel used?)

A divider, as in wedge politics, us versus them. Scary and hidden agenda haven't worked so well. Time for a new meme, wouldn't you say?

ya, ya... speaking of the need for a new meme... oh, look - here's Harper barking up the Coalition meme. Surprise, surprise. Of course, every other utterance, out of every other Conservative beak in coming days will be, “Squawk, Coalition”, “Squawk, Coalition”. Flaherty started the ball rolling with his speech the other day... beaking off about the Coalition no less than 14 times!

Today in the House of Commons the Coalition voted to keep the long-gun registry. Twenty Coalition MPs originally supported the simple and straightforward bill to scrap the long-gun registry, but under pressure from their Ottawa bosses they turned their backs on their constituents and voted to keep the registry.

[Smallc]

part of an election platform... policy from day one? Then why not make it a government bill? Why dick around trying to introduce a bill through the Senate...

That was a government bill, and there's nothing wrong with introducing bills in the Senate.

[waldo]

I don't doubt it. This may have been the plan all along. I know I won't vote Liberal now, and I probably won't vote NDP.

Smallc... your vote follows the wind! Philosophy, ideology, inherent beliefs, loyalty, allegiance... what's that, says Smallc?

[Smallc]

Smallc... your vote follows the wind!

Yes, it does. I find sticking to rigid ideology is very unsatisfactory. I was never enamoured with Ignatieff to start with. When I was Mr. Bagnell, I was sure. I thought I couldn't vote Conservative (I really don't want to), but if I have to vote, and I can't vote Liberal, I'm not voting for any party that has Jack Layton as its leader.

Philosophy, ideology, inherent beliefs, loyalty, allegiance... what's that, says Smallc?

I'll tell you...right when you discover what an actual debate or argument is.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Smallc

[scribblet]

It was done through a private member's bill because usually they are free votes, and not whipped.

[waldo]

That was a government bill, and there's nothing wrong with introducing bills in the Senate.

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.

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

[waldo]

It was done through a private member's bill because usually they are free votes, and not whipped.

not whipped! Ya, right... apparently, not a single Conservative party member chose to listen to his/her constituents... not a single Conservative riding had a majority of constituents in favour of keeping the gun registry. Not whipped!

[capricorn]

BTW, I started sending out emails re: Cukier and grants etc. this is the only reply I've received so far

Le français suit. Cute eh... bet it was never even read, it's just an automated response. LOL

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email.

I appreciate hearing from the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier. Rest assured that your correspondence will be reviewed and acted upon should it be required.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Mauril Bélanger, M.P.

Ottawa—Vanier

Hey, I'm in Ottawa-Vanier too. I've written to him too and received nothing but an acknowledgment. Last I heard, Mauril is keeping busy working on Canada's 150th ceremonies.

[scribblet]

Hey, I'm in Ottawa-Vanier too. I've written to him too and received nothing but an acknowledgment. Last I heard, Mauril is keeping busy working on Canada's 150th ceremonies.

It's just an automated response, bet it wasn't even read.

I don't believe the CPC vote was whipped and neither was the NDP although pressure was definitely applied.

Of course after after Ignatieff accuses Harper of being a maniacal micro manager, now he whips the vote.

No pressure on the NDP tho LOL

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1203438.html

Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDonough both called Stoffer to ask him to consider Layton’s position. Stoffer says nobody pressured him, but if he looked at the math he could understand pretty easily that if some MPs had to change their positions, he was less likely to suffer at the ballot box than some of his colleagues. His margins are comfortable.

The party couldn’t afford to let the registry die, and it is no coincidence that they moved just enough votes to keep it from dying.

[M.Dancer]

Philosophy, ideology, inherent beliefs, loyalty, allegiance... what's that, says Smallc?

All good things if you are a partisan hack or a party cadre...not so important if you are a normal canadian voter.

[M.Dancer]

... not a single Conservative riding had a majority of constituents in favour of keeping the gun registry. Not whipped!

Do us all a favour and track down that riding...

Happy Hunting!

[Argus]

So what is the answer BAND ALL guns to private citzens????

Not every problem has a solution. The UK has very strict gun controls but criminals still get and use guns. Having thousands of miles of border with the US makes it effectively impossible to keep guns out. What we need, then, are strict laws against committing violence - which we do not presently have.

[Argus]

It was pointed out today that the Tories in the Quebec ridings are NOT voting by what the people want but by Harper wants. So are those Tories re-election in trouble too?

Very few of those who tell pollsters they support keeping the registry really care much one way or another. Those who oppose it, though, tend to be a lot more devoted to their cause.

[Argus]

If you think the Tories won't be hurt by this think again. Our Rep is a Tory and people at the local Timmy's were saying that OUR Rep voted how the leader wanted them to and that we all here should e-mail our Rep and say he's done in the next election. If the police say they need this registry then that all citizens need to know.

The police have never said they need the registry. The police brass have said the registry can be useful in certain cases. Then again, registering every knife, even kitchen knives, would likewise be of use in certain cases. So would registering baseball bats and machetes. But just because something might occasionally be of some value to the police does not mean we should put the whole country to work in filling out paperwork and spend tens or hundreds of millions to register every potential weapon.

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.

If there was a law which said the police could come into your home at any time for any reason without notice or warning, and the government wanted to get rid of it, don't you think the police would be aghast, and campaigning desperately to keep the law in place? Of course they would. The police will never give up an iota of control or power for any reason, not willingly.

[capricorn]

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.

If there was a law which said the police could come into your home at any time for any reason without notice or warning, and the government wanted to get rid of it, don't you think the police would be aghast, and campaigning desperately to keep the law in place? Of course they would. The police will never give up an iota of control or power for any reason, not willingly.

Speaking of the police, Gunter has a good piece on the role of police in matters of political debate.

To do their jobs properly and maintain the support of the citizenry, chiefs have to appear to be above the political din, fair and objective, treating all citizens the same. Yet in the gun registry debate, the country’s police chiefs – and especially Bill Blair, Toronto’s chief and the president of the CACP – were anything but neutral. They took sides, and like any other lobby group used facts selectively to advance their favoured outcome.

More troubling still, Chief Blair was openly contemptuous of any gun owners opposed to the registry, implying that anyone who wanted the registry ended was naïve and indirectly assisting gun crime. He often sounded as partisan as any Liberal or NDP MP. Once the House of Commons had voted to keep the federal firearms database, he rushed to the cameras and microphones and fairly beamed with self-satisfaction.

Those of you who are genuinely worried that a dismantling of the registry would have lead to more violence in your communities should think about that – about the effects that will follow from having police take a side.

---

Throughout the life of the registry, but particularly during the last couple of months, police brass have signalled to gun owners that they have little respect for them, that they start from the presumption that all owners are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. And even then they need to be watched, regulated, registered and suspected.

Shortly after the vote, Chief Blair sent out a gloating email to supporters saying that now that the chiefs’ side had won, “we are in a much better position to reach out to our opponents and attempt to resolve many of the issues which they have brought forward.”

Fat chance. After having dumped on gun owners from a great height and used the same moves as lobbyists and politicians to secure their desired ends, gun owners are not going to be in any mood to work with police.

And that’s what I mean by the damage police have done with their actions and tactics.

---

The chiefs in particular have shown nothing but contempt for gun owners, they should not be too surprised, then, if owners return contempt for contempt.

Having actively opposed owners and insulted their intelligence, Chief Blair now thinks they will make nice with him and his colleagues. Why? Because all good citizens should respect authority figures?

Well, not any more.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/lorne-gunter-registry-vote-leaves-police-image-wounded/

Clearly, Chief Blair says that the police now have the upper hand on the issue of the gun registry. My question to Chief Blair is this. Who are your "opponents" that you refer to that you want to bring onside?

[Topaz]

Since the Tories are making this an issue probably for an election this could back fire on them. Why? Quebec is for this registry and since the Bloc can't form a government, then the NDP or Libs can and more likely that would vote for the Libs and if they do that then the Libs could have a majority government.There's also a 50/50 chance that all Quebec Tories could lose their seats too.

[Keepitsimple]

The police have never said they need the registry. The police brass have said the registry can be useful in certain cases. Then again, registering every knife, even kitchen knives, would likewise be of use in certain cases. So would registering baseball bats and machetes. But just because something might occasionally be of some value to the police does not mean we should put the whole country to work in filling out paperwork and spend tens or hundreds of millions to register every potential weapon.

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.

If there was a law which said the police could come into your home at any time for any reason without notice or warning, and the government wanted to get rid of it, don't you think the police would be aghast, and campaigning desperately to keep the law in place? Of course they would. The police will never give up an iota of control or power for any reason, not willingly.

Clearly stated. Kind of keeps things in perspective, doesn't it?

[Alta4ever]

Since the Tories are making this an issue probably for an election this could back fire on them. Why? Quebec is for this registry and since the Bloc can't form a government, then the NDP or Libs can and more likely that would vote for the Libs and if they do that then the Libs could have a majority government.There's also a 50/50 chance that all Quebec Tories could lose their seats too.

Urban quebec can you see the forest for the trees?

[segnosaur]

Since the Tories are making this an issue probably for an election this could back fire on them. Why? Quebec is for this registry and since the Bloc can't form a government, then the NDP or Libs can and more likely that would vote for the Libs and if they do that then the Libs could have a majority government.There's also a 50/50 chance that all Quebec Tories could lose their seats too.

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.).