Dave_ON Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 No....I would be in favour of stringent firearms control. The registry is not firearms control. It is a thingy. A nothing, a sop, a compendium of hunters and sportmen... I would say it was a tax grab if it wasn't for the fact that it is a sink hole. Oh it very much was designed as a tax grab, it's just under conservative administration, (ie. the waiving of the fees) that it has become a sink hole. Properly managed it would have paid for itself by now and likely generating revenue. Alas the cost of the registry escalates with each year. Either we stop waiving the fees or we cancel it altogether, the current setup should not continue. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) Oh it very much was designed as a tax grab, it's just under conservative administration, (ie. the waiving of the fees) that it has become a sink hole. Really, so when it was determined that the costs were approaching $1 billion in 2002, who was the governement? Properly managed it would have paid for itself by now and likely generating revenue. Alas the cost of the registry escalates with each year. Either we stop waiving the fees or we cancel it altogether, the current setup should not continue. That of course is as untrue as your first statement. It was originally planned to lose 2 million a year. Edited September 23, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.