Well, this seems to be it. A peculiar "law and order" agenda.
Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA – Opponents of a long-gun registry in Canada are about to put a bullet in it.
Both sides of the gun-control debate believe the Conservatives now have enough Commons votes to give parliamentary approval in principle to a private member's bill to kill the registry for rifles and shotguns.
...
However, the registry's supporters and its critics see it as a major step toward the registry's demise."I'm concerned about the vote," Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley said in an interview."People shouldn't play politics with public safety. The gun registry saves lives; it protects police officers," Bentley said.
After a heavy lobbying effort, including a Tory-backed radio ad campaign targeting vulnerable opposition ridings, the bill's sponsor, MP Candice Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar), says she is confident at least eight NDP and Liberal MPs will vote to get rid of the law that requires rifles and shotguns to be registered.
That's because Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton, who personally pledged to vote against the bill, will allow their MPs to vote freely on the issue, citing their respective parties' "tradition" of free votes on private members' business.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
13 comments:
For those who are concerned about losing the registry I suggest blame yourselves.
For a decade costs were allowed to spiral out of control yet very few supporters cared.They didn't care when honest civilians tried to register their rifles and couldn't because of "computer glitches",backlogs and incompetence.
If the registry is that important then the leader should whip his caucus. Iggy can't do this in part because he allowed the "Danny 6" to vote free in a confidence motion.
I suspect the Libs. that are voting with the gov't are doing it for three reasons.
1. They recognize that the registry is not working and is unenforceable anyways
2. Their constituants are demanding it.
3. Iggy doesn't have the power to discipline them anyways.
This is further proof of the Lib party's weakness.
toronto star april 2 09
To speculation a free vote in either chamber might scuttle the long-gun registry, Ignatieff effectively served notice his members would face a so-called whipped vote, expected this month.
Sorry James, but the gun registry does nothing to save lives.
We Liberals were wrong to have introduced it in the first place and we are now wrong to lament its impending demise.
I have yet to see one single shred of evidence to suggest that the registry has saved lives. In fact, it would appear that the murder rate in this country is actually rising.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091028/world/international_us_murders
If only criminals would register their guns...
A robust, well-functioning registry allows an investigating officer to know with certainty a firearm is on the property. There still, of course, might be an unregistred firearm on the premises.
80% of firearms used in crimes in Canada are smuggled in from the United States. A country unable to rationally deal with firearms because the Republican Party (the Conservative Party’s ideological soul mates) adheres strictly to that country's National Rifle Association and its positions on firearm legislation.
The NRA being uniformly against any legislation which might impinge in any form on the rights of gun owners. As, it appears, do the Conservative Party and its supporters.
It seems worth repeating. A registry can only account for the firearms registered to it. It cannot account for unlicensed, smuggled, illegal, or otherwise unregistered firearms. Apparently this failure is a big enough flaw for Conservatives to scrap it.
These, it should be noted, are the same Conservatives who promote carbon capture as an answer to the tar sands and global warming.
This, despite carbon capture, to use a polite term, being a not yet ‘marketable’ technology. That is: it belongs more properly to the realm of fantasy than to science.
Carbon capture is like wishing upon a star that carbon fairies will swoop up from under the toadstools where they live and scoop up all that nasty carbon, taking it far, far away, maybe to Africa, leaving a trail of glitter and sparkly shiny trinkets for Conservatives to play with in their wake.
A gun registry has to function perfectly – but when it comes to the planet being poisoned, we should rely on technology which isn’t close to being workable. Or affordable. This is what I mean when I write Conservatives are dishonest.
Of course, as anyone with any sense realizes, practical arguments about the gun registry, whether it will reduce crime, prevent murder; or whether it actually helps police officers do their job better, in greater safety, are a McGuffin. A smokescreen. For both sides.
The practical implications for gun owners in Canada are negligible and mainly monetary (they have to pay a fee – which nobody likes). However, that is not the real source of opposition.
What the gun registry is really about, and why Conservatives oppose it, is because a gun registry restricts access to firearms. Even if that restriction is mainly abstract. A firearm registry controls firearms.
This is, in my opinion, the most odious part for firearm advocates. You don’t have an automatic right to own a gun, a government agency decides who gets to own a gun and who doesn’t.
A gun registry sends a message that guns are special and the state has a right to track them. To, in effect, control them. This is a message hard line firearm advocates cannot abide.
Because, for the most hard line supporters of firearms, firearms are special. They are so special that the government can never be allowed any degree of control over them, least the government attempt to take them away.
You have to admit they have a tight argument. One hermetically sealed off from the outside world and impervious to facts or dissenting opinions.
And a Fisking we will go:
A robust, well-functioning registry allows an investigating officer to know with certainty a firearm is on the property...
With certainty? Haven't I explained that clearly enough for you? I can loan a gun, I can borrow a gun. There is no certainty whatsoever. I have a licence for a gun, say, but haven't bought one. I borrow my friend's to try it out. A police officer pays me a visit. Does the registry tell him I have it? Uh, no.
80% of firearms used in crimes in Canada are smuggled in from the United States. A country unable to rationally deal with firearms because the Republican Party...
Actually, they have this little thing called the constitution, which their Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, that says it IS a right to keep and bear arms. That's two factual errors.
The NRA being uniformly against any legislation which might impinge in any form ...
Are we arguing about the US or Canada? Please try to stay on topic.
It seems worth repeating. A registry can only account for the firearms registered to it. It cannot account for unlicensed, smuggled, illegal, ...
I'd say that's a pretty big flaw, wouldn't you? Given your goal of increasing safety for police I'd say it could even be a "fatal" flaw.
These, it should be noted, are the same Conservatives who promote carbon capture as an answer to the tar sands and global warming...
...taking it far, far away, maybe to Africa, leaving a trail of glitter and sparkly shiny trinkets for Conservatives to play with in their wake.
Focus, WSAM, focus! We're talking about the gun registry, remember??
A gun registry has to function perfectly – but when it comes to the planet being poisoned...
Gun registry, anyone? Buehler?
Of course, as anyone with any sense realizes, practical arguments about the gun registry, whether it will reduce crime, prevent murder; or whether it actually helps police officers do their job better...
...A gun registry sends a message that guns are special and the state has a right to track them. To, in effect, control them. This is a message hard line firearm advocates cannot abide.
So all this money, these restriction, this whole fight is symbolic? Just so a government, or to be more correct, on party that might form government, feels that they should say who does or does not get guns? Seriously? And a law on licensing didn't do that? So you spent $2,000,000,000 on a non-functioning symbol?
Because, for the most hard line supporters of firearms, firearms are special. They are so special that the government can never be allowed any degree of control over them, least the government attempt to take them away...
What "attempt"? They already have taken away hundreds of thousands of guns without compensation. And it appears that you "progressives" intend to progress further and take away more gun. Can you promise never, ever to ban, reclassify, or in any way alter the guns which we already own today? I haven't heard you promise that. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't trust you.
... and Harper managed to knock another item off the list of reasons people might have to vote Liberal or NDP rather than for the Conservatives.
At a certain point, the opposition parties have to start opposing, especially on key issues like gun control.
Where do you get the idea that a firearm registry will control firearms. The statement defies all logic!
It is a fact that implementation will lead to an increase in the number of illegal firearms and their use.
As far as free votes in parliament are concerned, they all should be. Then perhaps we will approach democracy and our so-called leaders will start to realize that they are only keeping the records for those who are actually running the country.
Dave
www.dmmcgowan.blogspot.com
A gun registry only accounts for registered guns. Not unregistered ones. And yes, it seeks to control firearms. Just as the MTO controls automobiles. Rattie, I can reach no other conclusion but you are functionally illiterate. I tried to get through your ‘fisking’ but couldn’t, sorry.
John Geddes reported in MacLean’s that ,in 2006, police across Canada used their computer systems, often terminals right in their patrol cars, to pull information from the Canadian Firearms Registry over 9,400 times a day. That is 3,438,729 times a year.
Here's a shorter Fisking that won't tire your brain, WSAM:
A gun registry only accounts for registered guns. Not unregistered ones. And yes, it seeks to control firearms. Just as the MTO controls automobiles. Rattie, I can reach no other conclusion but you are functionally illiterate. I tried to get through your ‘fisking’ but couldn’t, sorry.
You call me illiterate but can;t get through my post, Mr. Pot?
John Geddes reported in MacLean’s that ,in 2006, police across Canada used their computer systems, often terminals right in their patrol cars, to pull information from the Canadian Firearms Registry over 9,400 times a day. That is 3,438,729 times a year.
And that is a terribly misleading stat. Every time a police officer stops a motorist and runs his license it also checks the registry. It is disingenuous to suggest officers are purposefully checking the registry when it is an automatic check. But then "disingenuous" pretty much characterizes your whole facile argument.
In all of Canada the police only perform computer checks 9,400 times a day?
yeah.
Great article as for me. It would be great to read a bit more concerning that theme. Thank you for sharing this material.
Joan Stepsen
Gadget sale
Post a Comment