For or against long gun registry?

[Michael Hardner]

Since when is coherence a requirement for membership and posting privileges?

I don't understand.

Why are you bringing up membership and posting privileges ?

[jbg]

I don't understand.

Why are you bringing up membership and posting privileges ?

Just kidding.

But many posters don't come close to having a grip on either of Canada's three official languages.

[Michael Hardner]

Just kidding.

But many posters don't come close to having a grip on either of Canada's three official languages.

And the public at large is even worse. Have you ever seen a TV news segment where they interview people on the street and ask who the PM is ? It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of interest and engagement.

We could create political focus groups that include citizens who are informed, interested and engaged. There would be no barriers to inclusion except for those characteristics. This would be a slight change to what happens in practice now anyway.

This is why I don't shed tears about the fact that voter participation is continually dropping. If they're not interested in taking part, then let's move forward and leave them behind.

[jbg]

And the public at large is even worse. Have you ever seen a TV news segment where they interview people on the street and ask who the PM is ? It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of interest and engagement.

When I used to do music trading, before the Courts clamped down, many more Canadians didn't know who their Premier was. I'd rather Rick Mercer focus on that than asking Americans such inane questions as "did you know most Canadian students don't know who their President is".

We could create political focus groups that include citizens who are informed, interested and engaged. There would be no barriers to inclusion except for those characteristics. This would be a slight change to what happens in practice now anyway.

That is really a good idea.

This is why I don't shed tears about the fact that voter participation is continually dropping. If they're not interested in taking part, then let's move forward and leave them behind.

The corollary to that is those that don't vote have no right to complain about the results. I personally have voted in about 98% of the elections I've been eligible for since April 1975.

[cybercoma]

This is why I don't shed tears about the fact that voter participation is continually dropping. If they're not interested in taking part, then let's move forward and leave them behind.

You can't just disenfranchise an entire segment of the population. You need to consider who is being left behind and why they don't want to be engaged. I know you're stating explicitly that decisions will be made that don't take them into consideration, but those people, even if they have no voice by choice, still need to be considered when creating legislation.

[Michael Hardner]

You can't just disenfranchise an entire segment of the population. You need to consider who is being left behind and why they don't want to be engaged.

I'm not talking about disenfranchising anybody. I'm talking about enfranchising those who take their civic responsibilities seriously.

How do we go about finding out why people don't want to be engaged ? We can ask, but are the answers valid ? If people don't feel like they're part of the process, but their response is to not take 20 minutes to vote every four years then what ?

How much should we (the public) ask of the individual citizen, and to whom should we listen ?

Our current model asks very little, and listens to the masses - not to an informed public.

I know you're stating explicitly that decisions will be made that don't take them into consideration, but those people, even if they have no voice by choice, still need to be considered when creating legislation.

Maybe that's too strong. A focus group speaks for the larger population, but they are more engaged. There are policy focus groups today, but you don't hear about them. If you're telephoned about an issue by a polling firm, you're likely "voting" on policy in a way that expresses far more power than at the ballot box.

[Guest Derek L]

Thanks, Derek L. Now that you have declared yourself above the law of Canada, you will doubtlessly never criticize poster or other person on here for breaking the law, correct ?

Where did I say I was above the law? I made mention of a hypothetical form of protest, if a future hypothetical Government, proposed to make a future hypothetical law………How is that any different from those that openly use/produce/sell recreational drugs or Occupy a city park to protest what they feel as perceived injustice?

If anything, my hypothetical protest scenario would have little to no effect on the general public’s day to day lives……..If only 25% of the ~3 million guns owners took part, and prior to any law being passed, vocally made it known to said Government that we would not collectively comply with their proposed law, the proverbially ball would be in the Government’s court(s)……..“We” might not even have to break a hypothetical future law………Do you realistically think another Government would create another law, that they would have next to no chance to realistically enforce?

[huh]

Where did I say I was above the law? I made mention of a hypothetical form of protest, if a future hypothetical Government, proposed to make a future hypothetical law………How is that any different from those that openly use/produce/sell recreational drugs or Occupy a city park to protest what they feel as perceived injustice?

If anything, my hypothetical protest scenario would have little to no effect on the general public’s day to day lives……..If only 25% of the ~3 million guns owners took part, and prior to any law being passed, vocally made it known to said Government that we would not collectively comply with their proposed law, the proverbially ball would be in the Government’s court(s)……..“We” might not even have to break a hypothetical future law………Do you realistically think another Government would create another law, that they would have next to no chance to realistically enforce?

it's not as if any liberal or progressive who is for gun control would ever ignore say a law that says don't smoke pot, just as an example. Those bastards think they are above the law!

[Michael Hardner]

Where did I say I was above the law? I made mention of a hypothetical form of protest, if a future hypothetical Government, proposed to make a future hypothetical law………How is that any different from those that openly use/produce/sell recreational drugs or Occupy a city park to protest what they feel as perceived injustice?

If anything, my hypothetical protest scenario would have little to no effect on the general public’s day to day lives……..If only 25% of the ~3 million guns owners took part, and prior to any law being passed, vocally made it known to said Government that we would not collectively comply with their proposed law, the proverbially ball would be in the Government’s court(s)……..“We” might not even have to break a hypothetical future law………Do you realistically think another Government would create another law, that they would have next to no chance to realistically enforce?

Who cares whether or not there is an affect. Your statement saying you won't follow the laws of the land speaks for itself.

[huh]

Who cares whether or not there is an affect. Your statement saying you won't follow the laws of the land speaks for itself.

Yea, that will place him at the same level as someone who speeds, or smokes pot, oh my stars.

[Michael Hardner]

Yea, that will place him at the same level as someone who speeds, or smokes pot, oh my stars.

Same level? What does that mean?

[Guest Derek L]

Who cares whether or not there is an affect. Your statement saying you won't follow the laws of the land speaks for itself.

How so? Would you follow a “law of the land” that you perceived as morally corrupt? Or taking a different track, have you ever tried Pot? Or drive over the speed limit?

[Tomrourne]

Since my CFP sold when it hit my limit stop, I bought more shares of ARR today. Lets rake in some until the next big negative analysis comes....LMAO

[Shakeyhands]

old news - although it was funnier a month back... it's still gold, real gold!

I find it quite funny that in the picture on the main page for that site, the father is actually not adhering to the law/rules about blaze orange in most if not all provinces, I believe AB is the only province that doesn't require 40% blaze during deer and moose seasons.

You'd think they would have gone over the top to portray the hunters in the pictures as following the rules.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And the public at large is even worse. Have you ever seen a TV news segment where they interview people on the street and ask who the PM is ? It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of interest and engagement.

We could create political focus groups that include citizens who are informed, interested and engaged. There would be no barriers to inclusion except for those characteristics. This would be a slight change to what happens in practice now anyway.

This is why I don't shed tears about the fact that voter participation is continually dropping. If they're not interested in taking part, then let's move forward and leave them behind.

Why not simply make it a requirement of citizenship, making the concept of democracy functional by means of enforced participation. I have yet to speak to an Aussi that did not think the the idea of democracy starts with voter participation.

[Wiggum]

I find it quite funny that in the picture on the main page for that site, the father is actually not adhering to the law/rules about blaze orange in most if not all provinces, I believe AB is the only province that doesn't require 40% blaze during deer and moose seasons.

You'd think they would have gone over the top to portray the hunters in the pictures as following the rules.

BC doesn't have a blaze orange law and they have the longest gun seasons of any province.

[huh]

I find it quite funny that in the picture on the main page for that site, the father is actually not adhering to the law/rules about blaze orange in most if not all provinces, I believe AB is the only province that doesn't require 40% blaze during deer and moose seasons.

You'd think they would have gone over the top to portray the hunters in the pictures as following the rules.

No that's not true, even Ontario has exception whereby a small game hunter doesn't have to wear orange outside of the gun season for big game, turkey hunters as well.

Edited February 2, 2012 by huh

[Shakeyhands]

No that's not true, even Ontario has exception whereby a small game hunter doesn't have to wear orange outside of the gun season for big game, turkey hunters as well.

Correct. There are lots of exceptions (like bow hunters in tree stands for example) to the rule. The father is carrying a couple/few Grouse, the season for grouse is only a couple of weeks longer than that of big game in SOME WMU's. I suppose it could have been before Big game season opened in some WMU.

Regardless, you still think they would have gone over the top.

I took my son out target shooting last weekend. There were others in the area target shooting and we both wore vests. It's only common sense I suppose.

[Shakeyhands]

BC doesn't have a blaze orange law and they have the longest gun seasons of any province.

Thanks, didn't know that.

[AusKanada]

As much of a waste as it was creating in the first place, abolishing it is even more ridiculous. Most police organizations supported its retention.

It's just Harper showing he can keep one or two promises while failing at deficit reduction, Triple-E Senate reform, Arctic Sovereignty, federal-provincial relations and so on.

[greyman]

As much of a waste as it was creating in the first place, abolishing it is even more ridiculous. Most police organizations supported its retention.

It's just Harper showing he can keep one or two promises while failing at deficit reduction, Triple-E Senate reform, Arctic Sovereignty, federal-provincial relations and so on.

Abolishing the gun registry should've happened yesterday.

Police organizations are extensions of government, and the last thing any government wants is an armed citizenry. No surprise they'd support legislation that makes it hard for law abiding citizens to procure weapons, yet does nothing to slow the flow of guns in the criminal underworld.

[AusKanada]

Abolishing the gun registry should've happened yesterday.

Police organizations are extensions of government, and the last thing any government wants is an armed citizenry. No surprise they'd support legislation that makes it hard for law abiding citizens to procure weapons, yet does nothing to slow the flow of guns in the criminal underworld.

So your solution to combating a wealth of weapons in the underworld is allowing gun owners little registration of their weapons? Allowing them to be easily stolen and not as easily tracked? Wow, great idea.

[greyman]

So your solution to combating a wealth of weapons in the underworld is allowing gun owners little registration of their weapons? Allowing them to be easily stolen and not as easily tracked? Wow, great idea.

My "solution to combating a wealth of weapons in the underworld"?

Not one piece of legislation will ever effectively combat that.

So, what are we to do? Make it harder for law abiding people to protect themselves from those who will get guns no matter what?

Criminals don't register their guns, and thus they get them easily. Allowing all citizens to acquire guns free of registering them evens the playing field, decreases our dependence on government, and thus saves the taxpayers lots of money.

[AusKanada]

My "solution to combating a wealth of weapons in the underworld"?

Not one piece of legislation will ever effectively combat that.

So, what are we to do? Make it harder for law abiding people to protect themselves from those who will get guns no matter what?

Criminals don't register their guns, and thus they get them easily. Allowing all citizens to acquire guns free of registering them evens the playing field, decreases our dependence on government, and thus saves the taxpayers lots of money.

You have one side of the equation: what do you think easier access to firearms also allows? Higher firearms-related homicides, armed burglaries, increased grand theft auto rates, etc. Thus requiring more police officers to deal with more firearm-wielding individuals in society.

So if no legislation can stop the war on guns, are you therefore for ending the war on drugs?? No piece of legislation has ever stopped that either.

[greyman]

You have one side of the equation: what do you think easier access to firearms also allows? Higher firearms-related homicides, armed burglaries, increased grand theft auto rates, etc. Thus requiring more police officers to deal with more firearm-wielding individuals in society.

So if no legislation can stop the war on guns, are you therefore for ending the war on drugs?? No piece of legislation has ever stopped that either.

We have enough police officers, we just have them engaged in too many unnecessary places.

The War on Drugs is a great example. Time to end that ridiculous fight. You cannot legislate morality, and it's time to treat drug addiction as a health issue. The same can be said of prostitution, we are spending tons of money on drug related crime, and prostitution - a total waste of money.

And no, allowing all Canadians the same access to firearms as the criminals currently enjoy would not bring a spike in firearm related crime.

A law abiding citizen without a record is not going to turn into a homicidal maniac once he/she is able to have a gun in the house. People won't become bank robbers because there's no gun registry, and likewise we wouldn't need an increase in police presence.

To the contrary, the people who would commit those acts with firearms already do commit those acts with firearms they acquired outside of the current registry system. It makes sense to allow the rest of us to protect ourselves in the face of that reality.