Charlton Heston wants long-gun registry scrapped...

[fellowtraveller]

McGuinty said the ads reveal the Conservatives real motives.

Its the worst of right-wing, Republican wedge politics. You pick an issue, you sensationalize an issue... and you keep everyone else distracted with debates that are divisive, he said.

Public Service Announcement:

The Maple Leaf Web Forum Management Team regrets that this forum will closed indefinitely for repairs. A recent posting attributed to Mr David McGuinty has overloaded and blown up the Irony Meter.

We regret any inconvenience.

Edited September 15, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[guyser]

No. Can you post it?

Nevermind.

[Jack Weber]

You're kidding right?

No...He's not kidding....

[Shady]

No...He's not kidding....

You're right, I wasn't kidding. I wasn't hoping he'd post it. Apparently it's just not that important to him.

[capricorn]

Hunting Season is getting into full swing across most parts of Canada. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has spent a summer hunting for votes, and likely has no clue that tens of thousands of Canadians are headed to the woods to hunt and put meat in their freezer for winter.

So just as all those hunters are dusting off their rifles and shotguns, and thinking about all the rules that the Liberal’s gun registry places in their path, there is the Liberal leader out fighting to save the whole mess.

The timing likely has Conservatives gleeful to see their political opponents so out of touch at what really is, for many hunters the one time a year that they really think about their guns. It shows that Ignatieff and his team remain out of touch with rural Canada.

The Liberal leader got lost in his rhetoric even more this week. Ignatieff stated in a television interview last night on CBC Television that the NRA should not be involved in Canadian issues or the debate on firearms.

One wonders whether the Liberal leader holds the same view about IANSA, one of the pro-gun control groups which has been helping the Canadian anti-gun lobby.

If Ignatieff does not want outside groups attempting to influence Canadian policy, then certainly he must be opposed to any outside group? Or is the Liberal leader simply targeting the American National Rifle Association (NRA)?

If, as Ignatieff has said, this is a policy direction that should not admit any outside influences, then perhaps he might want to consider that under the IANSA umbrella are 800 groups attempting to influence governments in a number of countries around the world.

The IANSA website states, “The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the global movement against gun violence – a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW).”

It continues, “IANSA participants in Canada are working to:

* defend the new gun registration law from attempts to overturn it

* educate the public and policymakers on further measures to reduce gun violence

* engage in international efforts to achieve stronger regulations of the arms trade

In May 2008, Wendy Cukier, a professor at Ryerson College in Toronto, and President of the Coalition for Gun Control, writing for Project Plowshares stated, “SAWG seeks to engage the Canadian peace, disarmament, human rights and development NGO communities in the development and promotion of national and international policies and measures to reverse the diffusion and misuse of small arms and light weapons. Project Ploughshares is the coordinating agency of the working group.

“Through meetings, workshops and roundtables on small arms, the Working Group provides a forum, which encourages members to exchange information, share lessons learned and explore specific areas of collaboration and serves as a link between the NGO community and the Canadian government by engaging in small arms policy dialogue with relevant departments.”

SAWG is an acrynom for Small Arms Working Group.

Sharing information, lessons learned, and working with each other is exactly what the CBC and Michael Ignatieff are complaining about Canadian groups and the American NRA.

---

International experts tell NetNewsledger.com that IANSA is unable to show any evidence whatever that the methods it proposes actually do work to lower violence. In fact, they have a decades-long worldwide record of failing to do so. But what do you want to bet that Michael Ignatieff won’t deliver both sides of this issue?

http://netnewsledger.com/?p=2574

Let's look at this one excerpt more closely, which BTW is on The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).

“Through meetings, workshops and roundtables on small arms, the Working Group provides a forum, which encourages members to exchange information, share lessons learned and explore specific areas of collaboration and serves as a link between the NGO community and the Canadian government by engaging in small arms policy dialogue with relevant departments.”

Compare it to the CBC's coverage of the alleged NRA lobbying of the government.

Documents and correspondence obtained by the CBC show the NRA has provided logistical and tactical support to organizations such as the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA), established in 1998 to lobby Ottawa to shut down the registry.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html

First, what's disturbing about the IANSA's members is that they lobby directly with government departments. Something doesn't smell right and we should know more about this.

Secondly, why would the CBC initiate the current debate over the NRA and present information about the NRA but omit information about IANSA? What kind of journalism is this? What's maddening is that the taxpayers pay for that outfit to operate.

And yes indeedy, Ignatieff missed the mark big time. Hypocrite! Touring rural Canada and pretending to be supportive of the citizens and their issues. Hopefully sooner than later, Ignatieff will find out that hunters and rural Canadians are not the uninformed hicks he thinks they are.

[scribblet]

That's interesting, the article says that IANSA is lobbying without being registered as lobbyists. Also Wendy Cukier is allegedly under investigation for fraud, for taking a grant of nearly $400,000 received from Allan Rock's office - for guess what - lobbying the Lib. gov't for gun control. Ms. Cukier also owns an IT consulting company, which also benefited from contracts relating to the registry.

This is an excellent article from a few years ago, if everyone who wants to know how the Liberals played over this one, you should read it. It has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with getting elected.

A GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT

The Liberals' gun registry program was pointed at Kim Campbell, not crime. That's why it shot itself in the foot, says former justice adviser JOHN DIXON

http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/AGangThatCouldn%27tShootStraight.html

excerpted

The supreme irony of the gun registry battle is that the policy was selected because it would goad people who knew something about guns to public outrage. That is, it had a purely political purpose in the special context of a hard-fought election. The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver.

Edited September 16, 2010 by scriblett

[waldo]

Also Wendy Cukier is under investigation for fraud, for taking a grant of nearly $400,000 received from Allan Rock's office - for guess what - lobbying the Lib. gov't for gun control. Ms. Cukier also owns an IT consulting company, which also benefited from contracts relating to the registry.

citation request

[scribblet]

I got it from a private list server, it is referenced on a number of blogs. I did however, change the wording to 'alleged'.

[Topaz]

Harper is doing what the does best, splitting the country on a certain topic to gain more votes when HE calls an election. THIS topic should go to the provinces to decide then everyone will be happy and Harper can't use it to his advantage.

[eyeball]

This is an excellent article from a few years ago, if everyone who wants to know how the Liberals played over this one, you should read it. It has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with getting elected.

A GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT

The Liberals' gun registry program was pointed at Kim Campbell, not crime. That's why it shot itself in the foot, says former justice adviser JOHN DIXON

There's never been much doubt in my mind the Liberals played with this issue with a view towards getting elected. How they did it is moot really.

The Conservatives have likewise played with the issue for precisely the same reason, to get elected. Of course it goes without saying that absolutely nothing they have offered as an alternative to the registry will do a single thing to address the real issue either - how to prevent another Marc Lepine from harming the public.

Given how many people seem to be swayed by all this malarkey it's more a case of an ELECTORATE THAT CAN'T VOTE STRAIGHT.

[fellowtraveller]

how to prevent another Marc Lepine from harming the public.

Easy, just kill every male child at birth except a couple retained for sperm production.

Other than that, you cannot prevent insanity.

[Shady]

how to prevent another Marc Lepine from harming the public.

Perhaps if there had been law-abiding citizens that were allowed to carry firearms at the school, Lepine could have been neutralized long before continuing on with his evil acts.

[eyeball]

Perhaps if there had been law-abiding citizens that were allowed to carry firearms at the school, Lepine could have been neutralized long before continuing on with his evil acts.

Maybe but with that many more weapons as accessible as your suggestion implies I bet the numbers of Lepines would also increase.

Perhaps if Lepine had been forced to use a knife or a car he'd have deterred himself at the thought of having to kill himself in a far more painful manner.

[Pliny]

http://netnewsledger.com/?p=2574

Let's look at this one excerpt more closely, which BTW is on The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).

Compare it to the CBC's coverage of the alleged NRA lobbying of the government.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html

First, what's disturbing about the IANSA's members is that they lobby directly with government departments. Something doesn't smell right and we should know more about this.

Secondly, why would the CBC initiate the current debate over the NRA and present information about the NRA but omit information about IANSA? What kind of journalism is this? What's maddening is that the taxpayers pay for that outfit to operate.

And yes indeedy, Ignatieff missed the mark big time. Hypocrite! Touring rural Canada and pretending to be supportive of the citizens and their issues. Hopefully sooner than later, Ignatieff will find out that hunters and rural Canadians are not the uninformed hicks he thinks they are.

Good post! While the NRA is supplying logistical aid to similar minded groups in Canada international organizations are directly lobbying the government and no mention or upset from the CBC. The obvious political slant of the CBC, a publicly owned broadcasting network, should be reason enough to privatize it.

[Shady]

Maybe but with that many more weapons as accessible as your suggestion implies I bet the numbers of Lepines would also increase.

How so? There's nothing stopping somebody who wants to plan a similar type of attack from doing so. Usually people like that acquire weapons through illegal means if their unable to do so legally. They don't care so much about breaking laws.

[capricorn]

While the NRA is supplying logistical aid to similar minded groups in Canada international organizations are directly lobbying the government and no mention or upset from the CBC. The obvious political slant of the CBC, a publicly owned broadcasting network, should be reason enough to privatize it.

What struck me Pliny is that IANSA provides support for its members to lobby the administrative branch of government, i.e public servants within departments. There is no mention of lobbying politicians in Ottawa. If this is true, it is cause for concern. Where's a good investigative journalist when you need one?

On the other hand, CBC says the NRA lobbies Ottawa, so in the context of the article, the general conclusion is that politicians are the target of the lobbyists.

I would think it would be much easier to control the activities of lobbyists directly targeting politicians than lobbyists directly targeting public servants.

[eyeball]

How so? There's nothing stopping somebody who wants to plan a similar type of attack from doing so. Usually people like that acquire weapons through illegal means if their unable to do so legally. They don't care so much about breaking laws.

It's not a matter of stopping every single instance, it's a matter of preventing as many as possible. It's unreasonable to think we can achieve 100% elimination of the risk but I bet we can get that down to single digits soon enough if we try hard enough.

One way is to reduce the huge number of weapons that are presently available. Requiring that guns be stored at public armouries would immediately reduce the number that are available by millions. Given the likelihood of there being at least a few hard cases who refuse to get with the program we'd just have to let their guns fall into official custody the hard way. There's no way around that. How many that might be is anyone's guess but given the vast number of gun advocates who profess to be so law abiding probably not that many at all.

I think we'd want to look at far stricter regulation and controls on ammunition including precursor items used in it's manufacture to further drain the swamp, so to speak.

[waldo]

Also Wendy Cukier is under investigation for fraud, for taking a grant of nearly $400,000 received from Allan Rock's office - for guess what - lobbying the Lib. gov't for gun control. Ms. Cukier also owns an IT consulting company, which also benefited from contracts relating to the registry.

citation request

I got it from a private list server, it is referenced on a number of blogs. I did however, change the wording to 'alleged'.

ya, ya... my friend google showed me those same blog references... which is to say there are no legitimate sources for your claim - that's exactly why I asked you for a citation. Which is to say, your suggested references (which you don't/won't even identify, are bullshit)... which is to say, you sourced bullshit with the intention to impugn the character of Wendy Cukier, President of the Coalition for Gun Control. But you going back and editing your post to add the word "allegedly" makes it all better - hey?

[scribblet]

ya, ya... my friend google showed me those same blog references... which is to say there are no legitimate sources for your claim - that's exactly why I asked you for a citation. Which is to say, your suggested references (which you don't/won't even identify, are bullshit)... which is to say, you sourced bullshit with the intention to impugn the character of Wendy Cukier, President of the Coalition for Gun Control. But you going back and editing your post to add the word "allegedly" makes it all better - hey?

Yes it does, hey, I said I did that, they did get grant money and do lobby without being registered, so IMO there is something to it. I've no idea how to go about find the info.

I did find this which does confirm that the RCMP were asked to investigate, I have no idea how to find out anything more, but obviously there is a money trail.

http://cgnnightmare.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/c391-secu-hearings-wendy-cukier-answers-a-question/

The group yesterday asked the RCMP to probe the matter.

The entry in the lobbyist’s database clearly shows $380,600 going to Kim Doran of the Capital Hill Group from the Department of Justice to help pay for her services to lobby on behalf of her client, the Coalition for Gun Control.

I guess the Coalition for Gun Control got a freebie. A professional lobbyist, paid for by the government in order to tell the government what it wanted to hear.

Of course, they would listen to Kim Doran. Why? Well, she’s the Deputy National Director (Organization and Policy) of the federal Liberal Party, as reported by the Toronto Sun.

Edited September 17, 2010 by scriblett

[Keepitsimple]

I did find this which does confirm that the RCMP were asked to investigate, I have no idea how to find out anything more, but obviously there is a money trail.

http://cgnnightmare.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/c391-secu-hearings-wendy-cukier-answers-a-question/

Gee....do you think the CBC and Evan Solomon will start asking some probing questions about this?

[scribblet]

Doubt it LOL I did find where someone posted a bourque headline about it, but that of course is not valid, so there must have been something in the papers.

[waldo]

Yes it does, hey, I said I did that, they did get grant money and do lobby without being registered, so IMO there is something to it. I've no idea how to go about find the info.

I did find this which does confirm that the RCMP were asked to investigate, I have no idea how to find out anything more, but obviously there is a money trail.

http://cgnnightmare.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/c391-secu-hearings-wendy-cukier-answers-a-question/

Gee....do you think the CBC and Evan Solomon will start asking some probing questions about this?

Doubt it LOL I did find where someone posted a bourque headline about it, but that of course is not valid, so there must have been something in the papers.

hey chuckles... I appreciate this is standard fare for Simple ton... but is this a typical measure of the diligence you apply to your post references/citations? Or do you just post bullshit...cause you can? This reflects back on a Toronto Sun article (surprise, surprise) from Jan 2006 (it's now behind a Sun archive paywall but you can find a copy of it here on a CBC 2006 candidates forum). Don't let that dated period cloud your judgment on the validity of the scurrilous claim/innuendo put forward in your latest offered link... 2006! I guess the RCMP have been sitting on it since then - hey? But ya, ya... when called on it, you (at least) added "allegedly" to your inferred current investigation claim/charge.

you could at least check the timeline - hey? Kim Doran was/is a registered lobbyist (for several firms), past and current... as far back as 1996 as far as I can read from querying the lobbyist registry. The contract questioned was awarded in August 2002 - Doran registers a 6 month lobbyist entry in March 2003 (client - Coalition For Gun Control). Somehow, your bullshit linked article wants to dick-about with the very precise wording within the lobbyist registry - where clear distinction separates consultant sections from client sections of the registry 'form'. But your linked article really ramps it up when it attaches Liberal party associations to Kim Doran, clearly implying an association prior to the Aug 2002 contract award and the March 2003 lobbyist registry entry. Unfortunately the fly in your conspiracy ointment has Kim Doran becoming Deputy National Director (Organization and Policy) for the Liberal Party of Canada for a single years period (2005-2006)... prior to that period she's working as a consultant (for various companies); after that period she goes back to working as a consultant for various Ottawa firms, inclusive of her current position with TACTIX.

of course... somewhere in there, there's your claim that Wendy Cukier is being investigated for fraud... oh wait, you graciously changed that to "allegedly being investigated". Unfortunately, you and your linked article can't even source the crapola Toronto Sun article properly. The article that reads:

The RCMP has been asked to probe a Liberal consultant over a $380,000 contract she was awarded to lobby Ottawa for funds for the ailing firearms registry.

The five-month contract was awarded by the justice department to Kim Doran in March 2003 to lobby the federal solicitor general, Treasury Board and Privy Council, according to a detailed lobbyist report.

so... as your linked reference draws it's own (fallacious) claims by referencing that Toronto Sun article:

- let's change your claim... let's change the name from Wendy Cukier to Kim Doran...

- let's change your claim from "being investigated for fraud" (acknowledging you shifted that to "allegedly"), to "The RCMP has been asked to probe"

- let's change the Toronto Sun reference to Doran as a "Liberal consultant", to a "consultant" who years later (after the contract in question was awarded/acted upon), served a one-year term with the Liberal Party

- let's change the Toronto Sun reference that, "Doran was awarded a contract in March 2003", to "the Capital Hill Group, an Ottawa consulting firm, was awarded a contract in Aug 2002"... we can also change the inference that Doran was directly awarded a contract... we can properly state that, according to the lobbyist registry, Doran registered as a lobbyist in March 2003 (for a period of 6 months), working for the Capital Hill Group, client as Coalition For Gun Control

still chuckling? Still wanting to hold to your claim (allegedly, or not)?

[M.Dancer]

Or do you just post bullshit...cause you can?

Pot Kettle Black

[Shady]

It's not a matter of stopping every single instance, it's a matter of preventing as many as possible. It's unreasonable to think we can achieve 100% elimination of the risk but I bet we can get that down to single digits soon enough if we try hard enough.

That's where you're wrong. Guns can be made illegal, which in many cases they are. But if you have somebody that is so disturbed, that wants to plan some type of similar attack. It can't be stopped. And all you do is allow them to stalk their targets free from harm, knowing that they're the only one that's armed and dangerous.

[eyeball]

That's where you're wrong. Guns can be made illegal, which in many cases they are. But if you have somebody that is so disturbed, that wants to plan some type of similar attack. It can't be stopped. And all you do is allow them to stalk their targets free from harm, knowing that they're the only one that's armed and dangerous.

I realize you can't stop every single enraged person, as I've repeated ad nauseum.

You can definitely make it harder for them to use guns however by implementing gun control and reduce the availability of guns.

I see individuals like you implying that allowing law abiding citizens to carry arms would prevent the Lepines but never the politicians. Why is that?