Gun Registry Part 6
September 15, 2010 - 9:06am
because its inevitable
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
.
Ken.
1. When you start a continuing thread, post a link to the previous one.
2. No. This will not, in fact, be a continuation of bashing the NDP, making up stuff about people who critique the NDP, general name-calling, and all other assorted nonsense.
I strongly suggest you, and everyone, DO NOT attribute thoughts and ideas to other babblers. Saying, "[Essentially: "if he cared."]" for example is mindreading and projecting what No Yards meant. Don't do it. Why? It increases the animosity, starts a tangent of "you said this" "no, I said this, but YOU said this."
I truly don't understand what content or substance could possibly be said in a 6th thread that hasn't been said already. Other than news of what's actually happening now, and thoughts/opinions on that.
Oh right, and more of #2. Which is not going to happen.
There was actually some turning to the issues now that the situation seems to have changed. A fair bit of that being in the closed duplicating thread.
And until Jack Layton was looking better 'those' who most voiciferously expressed unqualified support of the registry, had at least some of the time been addressing the substance.
ETA: cross-posted with Maysie, as is probably apparent.
#2 is poo.
Edited to add: I wrote poo. Tee hee.
KenS please stick to the issue, and not the endless, not particularly helpful talking about the issue at the meta level. I don't usually give these kinds of directives, but this is the 6th thread, 7th if we count the duplicate one started yesterday.
writer, enough with the drive-bys.
No. This will not, in fact, be a continuation of bashing the NDP, making up stuff about people who critique the NDP, general name-calling, and all other assorted nonsense.
I did not make up stuff about 'critics' [the critic] or name call.
I did answer stuff continually drawn out of thin air. And at least tried to stick to the logic of what was said, and not trivializing it by pushing the logic to its extremes.
I do realize that is both fruitless, and never ends up being helpful. So in the end, point taken. I might has well have joined in the name calling and misrepresentation of positions.
ETA: I see Maysie- you've been reading over my shoulder. Seeing "never ends up being helpful" and taking advantage of my slow dial up connection to say it first.
And now that I think of it, if you hadnt taken advantage of it at the end of the last thread, closing it while I was editing that awful formatting, I would never have brought my poo to this thread.
See its all your fault.
And I am angellic.
And writer, you've been very sensible on this. Probably have read some of the comments I was referring to about where this issue is going. And have some thoughts of your own.
The Liberals have staked a great deal on painting the NDP into a corner and have lost. What happens now if Ignatieff doesn't get the votes, or some of his MPs suddenly find themselves with a few hour flu on the 22nd? Is he toast?
So far all of the discussion has focused on the NDP. I think this merits a seperate thread as Ignatieff may be in trouble if he loses even more than he already has by trying to use this issue so nakedly for partisan gain.
Just excellent news, and now we will see if the Liberals will pony up and support the much needed changes the NDP is putting forward in the new private members Bill. Frankly I doubt it, as really, IMV, they were/are trying to use this as a political wedge issue, as much as the Cons were/are.
One wonders if some of those who were pressuring the NDP, other than those here who noted there needed to be changes made and the registry kept, who will be pressuring the Liberals to support it?
It seemed to me like over the last few weeks you have asserted both:
1. The NDP and Jack Layton are unprincipled, because rather than whipping the vote to do what they know is right (save the registry), they are thinking about seats and chasing votes.
2. The NDP and Jack Layton are making a poor political decision, and would lose progressive voters and current supporters.
To me these two points seem inconsistent--my apologies if I have your position wrong.
There is nothing inconsistent in that position ... you can be both unprincipled and make a poor political decision.
There is no question that Layton is not "principled", and that's not necessarily a horrible thing in politics, that's just how politicians are, especially politicians that are known for their ability to "compromise" on issues (heck, "politician" is almost the definition of "unprincipled") ... problem comes when they start compromising on important principles such as equality (for example the NDP support of discrimination against gay youth with their support of the Cons omnibus tough on crime bill .. which btw, no matter how many times someone makes this point no loyal NDP supporter will ever bother to address ... or the censuring of Libby.)
The "bad political decision" was in attempting to play the issue as one of paying lip service to the pro-registry side and simply allowing the minority of NDP MPs to vote down the registry ... they weren't expecting the blow-back that arose over that strategy and had to make a hasty retreat ... a retreat that in the end puts the NDP in a much better position and puts the pressure on the Libs to make sure they do have all their votes whipped, and the Cons to now show that they actually are concerned with addressing the issues of the firearm registry rather than simply using it as a wedge issue.
Perhaps you thought they would lose more supporters than they would gain--ie. that the votes they were chasing just weren't there to be had, whereas the votes they were losing were in important ridings. If this was the case, you didn't show it (ie. by talking about specific ridings and numbers).
Yes we did ... both Wilf Day and myself had posts that showed both that some of the anti-registry MPs ridings were either not rural, or were in safe NDP ridings, and where some other close NDP ridings might be in danger of going to the Libs if the NDP were seen as being responsible for killing the registry, and other ridings where the NDP were a close second and might lose ground for killing the registry.
The point being that being seen to save, or being seen to have killed the registry both had their potential to hurt the NDP (the 'lose lose" situation some speak of) .. they only option was to save the registry in such a way as to have the responsibility pushed onto the Libs and/or Cons (win win)... saving the registry (through whipping, or convincing enough MPs,) and offering to work to address the registry issues was really the only real option, especially after the pro-registry side stood up and explained to Layton that there would be a cost to letting the registry die.
Layton was able to take the "convincing" route, a route I admit I didn't see as being a likelihood .. but I wasn't alone in that, it was a given, even with the anti-shippers that without a whip the bill would pass. I'll give Layton some credit for pulling this off, but the vast majority of credit goes to the pro-registry side and the pressure they put on the NDP to revise their stance on the issue.
What you did do was imply that the votes being chased (rural voters, western voters, voters who do not support the registry) were lesser value votes--that they weren't as progressive as the urban supporters of the registry. That seemed to me like the argument that you were making--that the NDP was again selling out the progressive left to try to win over non-progressive voters (who would probably never support the NDP anyway). This resolves the inconsistency--clearly it's not worth losing higher value votes to gain lower value votes. But, you were saying this to progressive voters, who are NDP supporters (which you're not)...and I think some of them naturally took offense.
At least that's my take.
No, my point was misunderstood ... I said that most of the anti-registry backlash in the media was of the "gun grabbing, police busting down my door and stealing my guns, new world order" kind ... the vast majority of this was coming from people who would never vote NDP EVER ... I accepted there were reasonable people with valid issues with the registry, I just questioned whether this group of people were likely to vote against the NDP if the NDP saved the registry and made a real attempt at getting the issues addressed though some other manner than simply killing the registry ... the unreasonable people with unreasonable issues can go take a long hike off a short pier, they are not progressive, nor are they, or will they ever be, NDP supporters.
No, I don't. Although the reason given for the MPs to change positions was a pretty simple and straight forward one ... "the Cons are using this issue as a wedge issue to divide Canadians" ... seems to me that was an obvious truth, one that could have been easily grasped last years as it was this year.
When do you think fence sitting politicians decide which way to vote on an issue? When they are on vacation with their family? When they are in their ridings dealing with local issues? When they are in session discussing some unrelated issue? Or do you think they decide which way they're going to vote when the bill comes up in the house, and the national spotlight is on which way they're going to vote?
If you see both sides of an issue, are you going to decide 6 months before the vote? Or two weeks before the vote? Hmmm...
No, they are politicians, they work based on what's good for their political careers ... obviously the issue for changing the vote has not changed since last year, what has changed is that they were shown that everyone else could now see the real issues and told them in no uncertain terms that their stance of "passively" allowing the registry to die, and voting with the Cons, was not acceptable.
I'm under no illusion that the NDP are saving the registry because it was "the right thing to do" ... they are doing this because they know that this is a Cons wedge issue; don't want to be seen as voting with the Cons on a wedge issue; and they heard from their base and know that they have as much, maybe even more, to lose if they didn't pay attention.
The NDP has suffered enough from the pile of sycophant yes-men telling Jack it's okay to ignore the base, and not to worry about compromising principles for votes ... it's time the real NDP left stood up to the Liberal-lite wishy-washy NDP insider contingent that couldn't care less about a social agenda as long as someone waved a vote in front of their noses.
The NDP lost your support years ago...so you don't really have much claim to being part of "the base".
Again you're bringing up the vote chasing, as if you didn't go on and on about how much support the NDP was going to lose.
I'm part of "the base" that moved away from the NDP because of their shift to the right ... I used to be a member, and donated to the NDP ... I no longer am a member, and I don't donate ... I did hold my nose and voted NDP the last election, but had there been no attempt to save the registry that would have changed as well.
Maybe if this issue can teach the NDP executive a lesson and they stop "compromising away" progressive principles, maybe some day I can renew my membership and start donating again.
This time the NDP "royalty" bullies were told to go take a hike ... I couldn't be any happier about it .. maybe a few more cases like this where the rank and file NDP force the "leaders" to take a real stance in support of good policy and I can renew my NDP membership.
I don't even know what this means.
It means that there are some NDPers with direct connections in to the NDP party "machinery". Their advice is always based on agreeing with whatever Jack decides and/or pushing him to make decisions based solely on how many votes it gets ... closer ties and support of Apartheid Israel? Sure, that's ok ... discriminate against gay youth and vote with the Cons on a "tough on crime bill"? Again, that no problem for them ... claim they support the registry but have no issue if the NDP simply pays lip service to the pro-registry side of the debate and allows it to die? Yeah, that's fine, votes are more important than saving lives.
(and that's not to say all anti-registry posters are included in this group ... matter of fact I don't think any of the anti-registry posters are anything less than authentic .. I'm referring to the posters who claim to be for the registry but saw allowing the registry to die as the "right thing to do" .. until the shit hit the fan, then they didn't, and who would again change their position if something else happened and they saw more votes in "compromising" and allowing the registry to die.)
It's those people who I am referring to .. this time the "unwashed masses" of NDP and former NDP constituents spoke up and told these Liberal-lite wannabes to take their strategy of "compromising" away principles and shove it ... I'd like to see a hell of a lot more of that ... drive the Liberal wannabes to the Liberal party where they belong, and take back the NDP.
Layton was able to take the "convincing" route, a route I admit I didn't see as being a likelihood .. but I wasn't alone in that, it was a given, even with the anti-shippers that without a whip the bill would pass.
Way back a million years ago, in a sensitive post that seemed to touch many, I wrote that I thought something was happening amongst the NDP MPs and Layton that we wouldn't have access to, and couldn't see at the time, but that I suspected we would see down the road - before / during the vote.
But shouting and jumping up and down and running around mulberries is so much more appealing than giving thought to subtlety, and seems dull when compared to being so sure we are all masters of the universe. Both sides. I really do hope that folks take Maysie's advice and stop with the Punch-and-Judy show.
It's the reason I bowed out of this slugfest. And I won't be back if it continues.
I [unfortunately] joined this discussion to defend the legitimacy of people who take an anti-registry position against the way No Yards shamelessly misrepresents and dismisses them. [And its worth noting that for the most part, those who had joined him in that have long ago stopped.]
Funny you should mention the posters who have "stopped" ... I have a couple of PMs that explain why they have stopped, and it has nothing to do with my position ... matter of fact ... well, you get the point.
I stopped, not because of your position, but because of your aggressiveness. Which I addressed directly. But not just yours, No Yards. I think "both positions" can share responsibility for dragging the slugfest on and on.
Please. Stop.
ETA: Just in case it isnt clear writer [and some others]. When I said that long ago in the discussions all but one person had for the most part stopped trivializing and misrepresenting registry critics, I was aware that respectful critics has also dropped out of the picture.
Thats unfortunate and I'll take my share of the blame for the conditions that caused that.
If I'm good will some of you come back?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Some thoughts on where this is going.
1] I still dont have any idea whether the NDPs stated intent to introduce a new private members bill for improving the registry can actually be put into play. Unless it can actually be tabled, just as something to talk about, its not going to have legs. How much it would be liked and wanted by people around here doesnt translate into having legs. But if it can get legs, then it will both be good substance; and blunt the Conservatives continuing to use the evil regitry as a wedge in the West.
2] The Liberals wont be getting what they wanted out of this. At best, Iggy will have to at leat share some of what glory there is with Jack Layton coming off looking good. And since this was all about making the NDP look bad and poach votes there, and was not at all about competing with the Conservatives, it has failed for them.
3] The Conservatives have got what they wanted. Its still a wedge issue for them. And so far at least, the NDP is still very vulnerable in the West. Except for the yahoos who can never be pleased, the Western swing voters who wanted the registry scrapped, will probably give Jack the benefit of the doubt. But thats right now, when in real time Jack is looking like the conciliator people want to see. ["I dont have to agree with someone who I think is trying."] But during an election campaign and the run-up to it is another matter. And this is what the NDP putting into play a reformed registry would blunt. But all the announcing of good intentions in the world wont be sufficient for putting the alternative into play, so we'll see on that. Meanwhile, once this goes out of the news, the Conservatives will only do a little to prepare the way for juicing the issue again. Then going quieter for will just be holding their fire for when they can do maximum damage with the re-polarization wedge.
Meanwhile, once this goes out of the news, the Conservatives will only do a little to prepare the way for juicing the issue again. Then going quieter for will just be holding their fire for when they can do maximaum damage with the re-polarization wedge
This is why it would be incumbent upon people, especially Liberal boosters, to start pressuring the Liberals the minute the NDP Bill is tabled, but I have absolutely no confidence that they will. Thus the Cons will just play the wedge over and over.
That's exactly how I feel about this topic, and this thread.
Oops, was that just a drive-by?
Need help:
MP Miller has a message out to overwhelm survey in favour of scrapping registry. http://bit.ly/cbBgVn
This is our local radio station and his tactic is to do unscientific surveys and make them "fact" so we're playing his game....
Please help!
I stopped, not because of your position, but because of your aggressiveness. Which I addressed directly. But not just yours, No Yards. I think "both positions" can share responsibility for dragging the slugfest on and on.
Please. Stop.
I wasn't referring to your PM ... there are others who have stopped posting to this thread ... even stopped posting to babble, not because of my criticism of the NDP, but because of the bullying from the NDP insiders against anyone who has a criticism of the NDP.
Yes. Bullying is a problem all around. Not just in this thread. I believe I've been writing about it for years. And I mourn each and every person who has been driven out by it, and am saddened when a regular goes into rationalization and denial about it, and tries to minimize how damaging it is. I wish we would figure this shit out. Really, it's not so hard.
KenS, you don't seem to get it. Just stop. All the time. Stop. Promises to stop are not persuasive. It's like a textbook case of abuse. Apologies and promises to improve behaviour in the future.
Stop. Now. And going forward. Stop.
rural - Francesca, I voted, with this comment:
Media playing chicken with issues like this - driving in wedges instead of building bridges. Disgusting.
"Surveys" like this one are meaningless, unscientific, knee-jerk, and simply drive people apart, rather than explore ways to work together and understand / address each others' issues.
You can and should do better. Grow up.
The vote is 70% in favour of scrapping the registry. I encourage anyone who is interested to vote how they feel, and add a comment about the effectiveness of these surveys, and the way this issue has been used.
When we caught wind of this news survey yesterday morning it was 91% for scrapping, so we've gotten a lot of support in the past 24 hours, but more is needed!
Thank you thank you thank you - want more on our MP...go to the Aboriginal board for his latest...*shakes head*
Actioned RF
Please help!
Done.
Done as well, but since it's an "unscientific online poll" it really is statistically meaningless and the results should be ignored ... but, perception counts sometimes.
Need help:
MP Miller has a message out to overwhelm survey in favour of scrapping registry. http://bit.ly/cbBgVn
This is our local radio station and his tactic is to do unscientific surveys and make them "fact" so we're playing his game....
Please help!
Voted. It's still 70% for scrapping the long gun registry. I didn't see my comment posted but here is what I wrote:
On-line surveys are pretty much useless and hopefully will never be used to create public policy (RIP long form Census).
Anyway, perhaps you should have asked, do you support Canadian legislation drafted by the NRA's Canadian arm?
Yes, the US understands our amendment rights, including our right to bear arms.
No, I think our Canadian government should sponsor a formal government bill and all parties should work together to improve the Long Gun Registry.
Maysie, wish you would address No Yards in the same fashion that you warned Ken off the "non news" content in this thread.
With No Yards pissing all over it again, I don't understand why the thread is still alive. This guy is a real humdinger of a pit bull, without even the justification of novelty in rant.
George, you don't get to call No Yards names. Stop.
No Yards, we get it, the NDP has let you down. On many issues, for many years. Enough already. Stick to just this one issue.
That's allowed, by the way, critiquing the NDP. And it's allowed to be a proud member of the NDP who supports what the NDP does.
Jebus.
If this thread doesn't improve, including the bullying that writer mentioned, I will close it.
Fair calling or not Geprge, there hasnt been any pissing lately. So how about we leave it be?
[ETA: cross-posted with Maysie.]
God this Biblical "eye for an eye" thing is tiresome. Just get on with it. If a poster writes a longwinded "rebuttal," ignore it. Maysie's comment at #2 was directed at everyone, as is perfectly obvious. It's clear to me that most of the posters who think this topic needs 6+ threads actually like the lengthy, tedious "point"-by-"point" refutations. But if you're waiting for Maysie or I to step in and say "this side is right" and "this side is wrong," you're in for disappointment. The only thing this thread has succeeded in doing is make me care very little about a very important subject.
So, to reiterate Maysie at #2:
2. No. This will not, in fact, be a continuation of bashing the NDP, making up stuff about people who critique the NDP, general name-calling, and all other assorted nonsense.
I strongly suggest you, and everyone, DO NOT attribute thoughts and ideas to other babblers. Saying, "[Essentially: "if he cared."]" for example is mindreading and projecting what No Yards meant. Don't do it. Why? It increases the animosity, starts a tangent of "you said this" "no, I said this, but YOU said this."
I truly don't understand what content or substance could possibly be said in a 6th thread that hasn't been said already. Other than news of what's actually happening now, and thoughts/opinions on that.
But as usual, a fat lot of good that will do.
ETA. Cross-posted with Maysie.
I stopped reading in thread 2...I only came back to see if had decided to talk about what the NDP where doing...nope and I just added to the heap that will be known as the Long gun registry debate from grade 10 debating classes.
Sorry just tired of the back and forth as well.
Like I mentioned in the polling thread. I am glad Layton managed to evade the political trap laid by the libservatals. It wasn't about the registry anyways but the two old line parties trying to take votes away from a divided NDP...seems it worked.
Did they teach you that debating tactic in grade 9 debating class?
You know, the Mods may have to drop in once and a while and offer some moderation ... others who are bored of the debates in the firearm threads are free to be spend their time more productively debating the issues they are interested in ... if anyone tried to force you into a thread then I suggest you contact the mods and complain to them.
I wish I could see the viewing rates of these threads in discussions I have partipated in that are all wholesome and constructive, with people disagreeing but grappling to understand and find common ground.
Did they teach you that debating tactic in grade 9 debating class?
You know, the Mods may have to drop in once and a while and offer some moderation ... others who are bored of the debates in the firearm threads are free to be spend their time more productively debating the issues they are interested in ... if anyone tried to force you into a thread then I suggest you contact the mods and complain to them.
Wasnt that productive, maybe you woiuld like to comment on the rest of my post or just continue to be a pain in the ass.
Sorry, I figured that was just a throw away comment used to justify breaking in with an insult to the people who posted in the firearm registry threads.
I've no big problem with the last part of your post ... I'm glad you're glad, and I agree the real issue was more vote grabbing by the politicians (on all sides) than anything to do with public safety or registry overreach. Matter of fact the debate in the last 2 or 3 firearm threads was largely in regards to "what the NDP were doing". Not sure what thread you were referring to?
BTW, "pain in the ass" is all relative ... it took me many posts to reach that status, others can reach it in one post.
Well, well, well...
Speaking earlier Tuesday, Liberal House leader David McGuinty would not say whether all members of the Liberal caucus would show up for the Sept. 22 vote.
h/t - Accidential Deliberations
Like I said I got tired of sniping from all sides in the first couple threads so I skipped to this one..which at first glance didn't look too productive. I am happy with the outcome because it is the best way of going about this. The registry could be bi-annual or every 4 years like a license renewal on a car and get rid of some of the questions or combine it with the pal. When gettin a new gun it would go under your pal license number and be integrated into the registry. Something better and give that sense of security.
Scrapping it is a waste of the moeny that was used to set it up and gives the urban people the jitters even if it provides little in actual benefit to the average suburban couple with their 2.1 kids and thier dog. There MAY be some benefit to protecting the few good cops left in the rotten barrel, and it was mostly used as a wedge issue with the cons. If they had not been stirring the pot about it every single year, most gun owners would grumble but do their civic duty and register it. Same as we do for our cars and dogs. We don't like it but we do it. Canadians are passive, even gun totting ones.
It really is a lot more about money raising by the two other parties than about their commitment to any principal. The NDP waflled on it for the simple reason, it isn't a purely ideological issue. I think the mental health issue has a lot of merrit. But that just inflames the anti-registry cons that say "look they will come for your guns" which is an NRA talking point. If you are under a suicide watch they take away your shoe laces, I would think if they know you have guns(Any) it would also be a good idea.
I know people can kill themselves with kitchen knives by going "up street" but there is more room for saving them then with a gun which is pretty effective. Personally I think jumping out of a plane is the best way...at least you get a rush on the way out. But thats me.
Hi No Yards,
Thanks for demonstrating to me that you can be civil and polite when addressed in that fashion. It makes me more likely to engage you in the future. :)
It sounds to me like people want to get away from the he-said-she-said NDP meta. While I could address some of your responses, I will pass at that out of respect for the flow of the thread.
The one thing I will address.
I'm part of "the base" that moved away from the NDP because of their shift to the right ... I used to be a member, and donated to the NDP ... I no longer am a member, and I don't donate ... I did hold my nose and voted NDP the last election, but had there been no attempt to save the registry that would have changed as well.
Once you leave, you're no longer part of "the base". It sounds like you'd like to happily vote and donate to the NDP, if the party could be more inspiring, and that until then you're willing to grudgingly vote NDP as the least of the evils. I think there are a lot of people like you, and I think the NDP would do well to try to win you over. But you are not part of "the base".
I could write more about this, and would be willing to take it to PM or another thread. I don't really have much time right now and I want to get this post in before the thread gets closed.
Great just as layton said yesterday. How many libs will get the flu next week. OK iggy bring on the whip. And some robatusin.
Breaking news: According to Nationalnewswatch.com PETER STOFFER is now going to vote to keep the registry. If this is true - Jack really managed a hat trick!!
That IS truly amazing. Because I know that until very recently Peter has thought the registry sucks. Period. IE, before we even get to party politics.
Peter can also be something of a hard row to hoe, when it comes to deferring to consensus. He'll say what he needs to say for party unity. But when it comes to 'internal politics'- which is a lot of the dynamic here- he takes longer to convince to do something so that it doesnt alienate other people, and things like that.
So I would take Peter's change as an indicator there is a pretty strong consensus in the Caucus.
My guess is that some of those changing their votes, you wont see them doing it until the day of, or at the vote: let the issue be maximum cooled down before the consituents know how you will vote. Some who are vulnerable will take the 'heres my stand' approach, others will figure it is better not to let the pot be stirred around you. But Peter Stoffer doesnt have to concern himself with his standing in the riding.
Let's just hope the comments to have these NDP MPs backs if they supported the registry wasn't a lot of hot air, because make no mistake the heat on them will be heavy and they may very well be the difference between a Conservative government or not since the Liberals are also rans in many of those ridings.
Of all the 12 MPs who wanted to scrap the registry - Stoffer was the one with the most supersafe seat and the one where the Tories are not really a factor and where the number of constituents with strong feelings about scrapping the registry is likely very small. His opposition to the registry was totally his own beliefs.
Here is the link btw:
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=2758489
Two possibilities as I see it, probably a combination of both:
1) he decided that opposition to the registry was not as important as not falling for the Cons wedge issue politics and being seen voting with the Cons.
2) He indeed did listen to his constituents who told him that they supported the registry.
Once you leave, you're no longer part of "the base". It sounds like you'd like to happily vote and donate to the NDP, if the party could be more inspiring, and that until then you're willing to grudgingly vote NDP as the least of the evils. I think there are a lot of people like you, and I think the NDP would do well to try to win you over. But you are not part of "the base".
I could write more about this, and would be willing to take it to PM or another thread. I don't really have much time right now and I want to get this post in before the thread gets closed.
Thanks for the recognition WZ,
As for being part of the "base" ... I just used that word for lack of a better one. Whether you want to call me part of the pissed-off "base", or "someone that the NDP could count on to hold my nose and vote for them", doesn't much matter to me ... the point is that yes, as long as they don't do pull any more stupid anti-progressive nonsense like vote with the Cons, they can more or less count on hearing an earful when they come around, not receiving any donations, and not off-loading any lawn signs with me ... but I do vote, and baring a better alternative it's likely going to be for the NDP.
... but I do vote, and baring a better alternative it's likely going to be for the NDP.
From what I understand about Bill C-391, Harper, and the suggested intentions of certain Toronto Liberal birdcage liner scribblers, we'll likely have to deal with the registry issue a few more times before we get to vote for an MP again.
Practice makes perfect!?!
Once you leave, you're no longer part of "the base". It sounds like you'd like to happily vote and donate to the NDP, if the party could be more inspiring, and that until then you're willing to grudgingly vote NDP as the least of the evils. I think there are a lot of people like you, and I think the NDP would do well to try to win you over. But you are not part of "the base".
I could write more about this, and would be willing to take it to PM or another thread. I don't really have much time right now and I want to get this post in before the thread gets closed.
Thanks for the recognition WZ,
As for being part of the "base" ... I just used that word for lack of a better one. Whether you want to call me part of the pissed-off "base", or "someone that the NDP could count on to hold my nose and vote for them", doesn't much matter to me ... the point is that yes, as long as they don't do pull any more stupid anti-progressive nonsense like vote with the Cons, they can more or less count on hearing an earful when they come around, not receiving any donations, and not off-loading any lawn signs with me ... but I do vote, and baring a better alternative it's likely going to be for the NDP.
Thank the Lord...may we be truly thankful.
You really should stick to the official NDP script ... when you ad-lib it you just end up sounding small and petty.
It was an attempt to be respectful in the presence of an enormous ego! :)
The Guelph Mercury's editorial, or column by Michael Bondy, is remarkably full of praise (without a subscription, I had to get it from Googlecache, so no link):
GuelphMercury.com - EditorialOpinion - Liberals falter, NDP triumph on gun registry
It's not been a good run for the loyal opposition. Though Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff made a solid showing on his summer barbecue tour and now leads a Liberal party that polls at parity against Stephen Harper's Conservatives, he's also led his organization into a political misfire and ceded precious political space to the NDP.
The national long-gun registry, a Liberal legacy project introduced in the 1990s, has run over budget by a cool billion and according to opinion polls most Canadians want it scuttled. Canucks are fed up with the costs and invasiveness of the program, and still aren't clear on what the thing is supposed to accomplish since violent criminals aren't prone to registering their weapons.
That's at least been the Reform/Alliance/Conservative line for nigh a decade, and Tory backbencher Candice Hoeppner's bill to scrap the system recently passed the Commons and is due back for a decisive vote next week.
Last time Hoeppner's bill came to the lower House, it passed with the unanimous support of the Tory caucus, along with eight Liberals and 12 New Democrats. But with the defeat of an iconic Liberal national program looming, Ignatieff has ordered those eight MPs back into party formation.
Mr. Ignatieff's heavy handedness has peeved his caucus, alienated rural voters and handed authorship of the political narrative over to Jack Layton and the NDP, who now get to exercise the balance of power in the Commons.
Having been thrust into the spotlight, NDP leader Jack Layton has quite frankly graced the stage.
His position on this private member's bill has always been clear: he wants the Commons to reform the registry to make it less invasive and offensive to rural and aboriginal Canadians while preserving its benefits for law enforcement. But he has also consistently endorsed his caucus colleagues' right to vote their consciences.
Following Mr. Ignatieff's decision to strip his colleagues of their democratic rights, Layton immediately went to work proffering his compromise position to Canadians and engaging his dissenting MPs in private, persuasive dialogue.
After weeks of sustained effort, on Tuesday afternoon Layton proudly announced he'd convinced enough of his formerly dissenting rural MPs to support the registry, meaning the firearms database will likely survive next week's crucial vote.
Layton has achieved a parliamentary and political masterstroke that should leave his peer leaders chastened and impressed.
The NDP leader has preserved democratic norms in his caucus; protected caucus unity by bringing his team around organically to a decisive consensus; and successfully withstood media and advocacy-group pressure to whip his parliamentary team. He opted instead for cool, patient persuasion and consistent, common-sense messaging.
Layton has achieved his objective of saving the gun registry while sending the right conciliatory messages to his party's crucial rural supporters in northern Ontario and the prairies.
And perhaps most importantly from a political perspective, he's kept the NDP in the news and looking like a reasonable, responsible opposition party.
On this one, Michael Ignatieff was outplayed by both Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton. The prime minister came out a winner because his key wedge issue and money-raiser is in tact for another election campaign. And Jack Layton won because he gave Canadians a glimpse of what a constructive, competent and democratic opposition party is supposed to look like.
Mr. Ignatieff, however, lost the narrative, lost the initiative and deprived his MPs of long-standing democratic rights.
When you shot yourself in the foot, Michael, I hope the gun was registered.
I stopped posting in the first or second thread, but popped back in to take a well-deserved "I told you so". If you ask me, Layton has the patience of Job, and his party doesn't deserve him.
ETA: Wow, Wilf! That was an amazing editorial from Guelph !
@george victor #46
Yeah, I know what you mean ... maybe next attempt will meet with some small measure of success
I do apologize though for not realizing that I should be thanking the NDP for accepting my vote ... if I can afford whatever it is they are charging these days for being allowed to voting NDP, maybe next election I'll fill out an application to see if I can have the honour of voting for them again.
OO I agree that is a great article in a small paper. Its too bad that wasnt carried by a major daily or maybe the at issue panel on thursday. Perhaps that is the non media opinion on it and if so that is good for the NDP. If people start to look at how the NDP is for the most part trying to get parliamnet to work, they woudl recognize the benefit of more MPs. I know that sounds partisan, esp when I have never held a membership, but I can not undertand how the other two parties are seen as reasonable.
Interesting twist on Peter Stoffer.
He had a news conference as soon as he came back from Regina, in his constituency office, which is in the middle of nowhere for the media. [But calling it a news conference in the context of all the attention this gets means you'll get the word out.]
Then he says "'I've always opposed the registry. I will continue to do so. But regarding the vote, I will tell everyone on Monday."
All he would say beyond that is that he promised everyone he wouldnt say. Which is consistent with my guess that with maybe only an exception to make a point to the media- the rest of the 12 MPs that have not already said they were switching will not be saying what they will do, even if they have already decided to switch.
My guess- just as the only one that makes sense- is that there was an agreement for the rest to not say. So Peter being Peter, he sticks to the formailty that he does not strictly speaking say how he was going to vote; but he cant stand not giving a heads up explanation, so he calls in enough media to make sure its reported and delivers the enigma: I have not changed my mind at all about the registry, but I will not be voting the same as I did before.... you are drawing that conclusion you just made, I didnt say that, I will speak my intentions on Monday.
[Monday being back in Ottawa and not certain he can be picked up by local media.]
And implicitly, it would seem this means that Monday is the agreed day, closer to the Wednesday vote, when some of the MPs may announce they are switching.
I think that agrred delay in announcing more switches is a last insurance touch to providing cover to the MPs that have decided to switch; but are still worried about the repercusions to come, or like Stoffer have decided to go with the consensus even though they have not changed their substantive opinion about the registry, and dont relish explaining that [for essentially personal reasons rather than calculation of consequences for them].
Because there are going to be MPs who dont want to talk about their vote until they have to, and other MPs continuing one by one to announce will have the media pushing them for an answer... with even "you will see" answers will put attention on their vote they dont want. That kind of pressure on reluctant MPs could even mean one of them changes their mind.
Going over this kind of dynamic of handling appearances no doubt revolts a lot of people around here. But its my surmise of the finishing touches to what starts with Jacks determination to do this the way he thinks best.
If it was just political calculation of what loses you the fewest votes, the NDP probably would have just left it as a laissez faire free vote and let the registry die.
Some think that the only reason it did not end like that was because of the hue and cry from pro-registry forces. [Even though we all agree that was expected, therefore would have been part of a cynical calculation, and could not be "oh gee, we're going to have to do something about this."]
I think its because Jack Layton could not possibly have taken the easy way of just letting the registry die with a laissez faire free vote. A whipped vote was out of the question, so of course even Jack resolving that he was going to switch enough MPs votes risked failure. So, risking the registry going down, yes. But calulating that you are best off letting it die under your watch- I dont think that was possible for Jack Layton. Not possible because he believes in the importance and usefulness of the registry, and unpalatable on top of that because the opinions of that part of the base does matter to him persoanly as well as politically.
So he resolved that he was going to changeMPs votes, and he did it.
Is there proof that's what it was, and not just cynical calculation with a last minute change of course because of the supposedly unexpected reaction of pro-registry forces?
Of course there cannot be proof.
But everything we have seen is consistent with the explanation that it was Layton's determination and savvy at getting people to move [running back to his Council days], and for the pure cynicism explanation there is nothing except motive. A last minute reactive scramble by Jack Layton could never have pulled this off.
Candice Hoeppner is doing a Northern Ontario tour.
Here is an example of in this instance of the Conservatives doing the advance work to pick off a Liberal MP- Anthony Rota.
The Conservatives are closer in a lot more contests between Conservatives and New Democrats. But this is a pretty good example. They were second to Rota by 5,000 votes last time. Not close, but quite doable. And going after Rota is a win-win anyway. Even if they dont get the seat, that is more resources the Liberals have to put there, which means that much less available for close races in the 905 belt.
Same thing where the NDP are the main opponents. And not just going after NDP incumbents, it is eating away at the gains the NDP continually makes on the Conservative incumbents. [Plus poaching a few more Liberal votes also helps in holding off the NDP in the ground campaigns.]
In the partisan politics side of this issue Layton has "only" got agreement from his Caucus that things will work out OK for them individually and the NDP as a whole, with Jack's strategy. How well it works is no done deal.
While Rota and other incumbents are thrown under the wheels of the Liberal bus. Not to mention the slew of Liberal candidates across Canada whose already uphill battles in the hinterlands are further written off.
Expendable.
Throw Liberals up against Conservatives under the bus.
Publicize Save the Registry where it matters to the Liberal Party: picking up some seats now held by the NDP [or in the process, at least throw some wrenches into the NDP election campaign].
Winnipeg: Liberals head to city to boost gun registry
Carol Hughes just announced she will vote to keep the registry now
And her intention already being pretty well known. If my surmise is correct, plan is that will be that last we hear until Monday of any additional NDP MPs saying or indicating how they will vote.
I forget, what is the roll call order for voice votes in the House? The Liberals are now saying everyone will vote, and I expect that is true. But when in the roll call would it emerge if that is not true?
Since you asked about the At Issue folks ...
@acoyne: Layton's handling of this has been adroit. 2nd time in a year Grits thought they had him boxed in, and didn't. http://tinyurl.com/2g4mw8a
... there's more ...
@acoyne: @marcellam Not only adroit, but also adept. Indeed I would go so far as to say he has shown élan, or even éclat. #elitethis
I forget, what is the roll call order for voice votes in the House? The Liberals are now saying everyone will vote, and I expect that is true. But when in the roll call would it emerge if that is not true?
It's a private member's bill, so it goes row by row.
Throw Liberals up against Conservatives under the bus.
Publicize Save the Registry where it matters to the Liberal Party: picking up some seats now held by the NDP [or in the process, at least throw some wrenches into the NDP election campaign].
Winnipeg: Liberals head to city to boost gun registry
You have to pity gthe poor Liberals - all dressed up with no place to go!
BTW, I see that John Baird of all people is now denouncing Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff as "Toronto elites" who are responsible for keeping the gun registry.
What do you call a rather effeminate gay Tory cabinet minister who has lived his entire life in the middle of Ottawa, has never had a private secor job of any kind and is unlikely to have touched a gun in his life? I guess he's not a Toronto elite - just an Ottawa elite!
Follow up to the House roll call order:
Which means one side of the House, then the other?
And if so, is it government side first?
Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?
Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?
@ Stockholm #61
Being "citified" is one thing, but orientation and one's personal style don't really have any bearing on this issues (the registry or elitism). There are plenty of people who disprove these stereotype.
(and for that matter, plenty of people in cities do too)
Follow up to the House roll call order:
Which means one side of the House, then the other?
And if so, is it government side first?
Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?
Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?
My sense is they first ask for the Yes vote and start on the government side, so if it was a vote on the bill itself to scrap the registry , Stephen Harper and John Baird stand up , their names are called out and they are counted yes. all the way through the Conservative caucus all voting yes, then goes to the official opposiiton they skip over Ignatieff, who is sitting down, not votng for the bill, and work their way though any Liberals refusing the whip and voting t0oscrap the long gun registry, , then through the Bloc, who should all be sitting down and not counted as yes, and the big excitement of do any NDP MP's vote yes for the bill. Lastly the independents Helene G. voting yes.. then all those Nay are called , skipping over the government side as no one there opposes scrapping the registry, then to the Liberals who showed up to vote no, the Bloc, and more excitement the NDP votes not to scrap the registry but to fix the it..In case of a tie the speaker votes yes to move the bill along nd it goes to the Senate.
Howver if it is a vote on the motion to kill the bill the yes side would have no Conservativem members voting yes, only Liberals and Bloc and NDP voting yes kill the bill, .then the call for nays is when Conservatives stand up and are counted against the motion to scrap the bill , followd by and Liberals, Bloc or NDP voting against the motion to scrap the bill.
But I could be wrong.
I agree - but i just find it amusing that the Tories would have John Baird of all people denouncing "Toronto elitists". He is about as urban and elitist as they come.
I'd love to see Jack Layton and John Baird work the room at a rural Tim Horton's and see who makes a better impression - "Everyman Jack" or Little Lord Fauntleroy from Ottawa West-Nepean??
Stockholm, stop the bullshit homophobic talk about John Baird. Now.
One more time and you get a few days off from babble.
Little Lord Fautleroy is gay? Who knew?
Geez, six threads and I haven't posted on this topic. As one of those western hayseeds who is supposedly the object of all these political machinations, I suppose it's my duty to state my opinion on the rifle and shotgun registry.
I don't care one way or the other.
So a guy has to register his .306 or .22? Big deal, I have to register my car.
So nobody will have to register firearms? Big deal, I don't register my bike.
So do people agree with how Peter said the roll call goes?
Meaning, that all the Liberals votes are identified before any of the NDP votes have been identified?
Any Yeses on the Liberal side, then any NDP yeses?
And on the go through of the No's the any abstainers among the Liberals showing before the NDP abstainers?
Follow up to the House roll call order:
Which means one side of the House, then the other?
And if so, is it government side first?
Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?
Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?
It goes row-by-row on a private member's bill, starting if I'm not mistaken on the side of the MP whose bill it is. In this case it would start on the government side, then, but go all the way down to and including the Dippers at the far end. Then after all the rows to the Speaker's right have voted, he would call the rows to his left, in turn, and yes mix in all the parties one after the other.
Peter's method is correct for government bills and opposition day motions, but not for private members' business.
Follow up to the House roll call order:
Which means one side of the House, then the other?
And if so, is it government side first?
Ultimately: who goes first, Libs or NDP?
Or is it side by side: so that its some Libs/NDP, then some of the other; with the same thing repeated each row, so that the two parties are mixed together in the order?
It goes row-by-row on a private member's bill, starting if I'm not mistaken on the side of the MP whose bill it is. In this case it would start on the government side, then, but go all the way down to and including the Dippers at the far end. Then after all the rows to the Speaker's right have voted, he would call the rows to his left, in turn, and yes mix in all the parties one after the other.
Peter's method is correct for government bills and opposition day motions, but not for private members' business.
But is the vote on an opposition motion to kill the bill and so....?
It's a vote on a committee report about what to do with a private member's bill. So I would assume it's the voting procedure used for private member's bills.
Hey, the discussion has actually turned to procedure. Is there a chance this is winding down?
My guess is, only a pause.
The procedure question was wondering if there was a chance for voting drama, beyond tallying it up. If it was all ofone party's members, before another voted... some chance for manouvering. But if all the oppostion members are mixed in order- some Dippers even in order with the Conservatives, then that is unlikely.
Yeah, I have no doubt the joint will be jumping Tuesday night.
I was thinking a much more temporary pause than that.
we could always start a few more threads-one in how we could improve the registry, another how Jack has done good though a good process, another one on the drama of the vote . No limit to where we can go
The registry should be saved and it should be fixed. We must reject wedge issues,urban and rural divides Amazing how the Tories and Liberals can whip their MPs, expecting them to vote the party line,regardless of the wishes of their constituents and how the NDP can allow members to vote their conscience, and how when Jack and the caucus talk together they can come up with some good way to work through the system and do good. GO JACK GO!!!
Jack Layton did a wonderful job of answering Baird's charge of Toronto "elite" at work, "forcing" members to conform. He also pointed to Baird's billion dollar propaganda regarding cost of maintenance of the registry...it would actually cost each Canadian about 10 cents a year. He was also able to spell out the changes to the registry that he's proposing, while explaining "wedge issues" and their use by Steve.
Great Gaia it was so nice listening to a reasonable voice.
I got to see Layton address this issue first hand last night in a very rural riding at the nomination of Grant Robertson in Huron-Bruce. He was direct and very respectful of the views of rural Canada. He won a lot of people over with the tone and straightforwardness of his comments. Huron-Bruce is one of the most rural ridings in southern Ontario so if Layton can build bridges there- he has shown a real way forward. As he said addressing the concerns of both rural and urban Canada and fixing the registry won't please everyone, but it is the best way to put this divisivness behind us. First time I have seen Layton in person and I was really, really impressed with his common touch, his humour, his willingness to be very direct and his energy.
By the way the NDP had no fewer than 3 MPs, including Layton, in the riding in support of Robertson's nomination. If you wonder about the NDP's committment to rural Canada you need look no farther than that!
You have to go back a few years, but Grey County was once. with Bruce, a very, very progressive rural riding of indignant Scots:
"(born March 24, 1890, Grey county, Ont., Can. - died Feb. 13, 1954, Toronto) Canadian politician. Originally a schoolteacher, she entered politics to represent the farmers in her region. In 1921, the first year women could vote in national elections in Canada, she was elected to the Canadian House of Commons as its first female member; she served until 1940. She advocated prison reform and women's rights as well as a protective tariff. She was the first female Canadian delegate to the League of Nations. Elected to the Ontario legislature (1943 - 45, 1948 - 51), she sponsored the province's first equal-pay legislation."
For more information on Agnes Campbell Macphail, visit Britannica.com.
AIH pointed out that the high school from which Stephen Harper graduated is in Toronto.
Yes, the bastard dropped out of the U of T and went to Calgary for his BA in 1985. And google tells me he got to attend the Bilderberg Group session in 2003. Nothing elite or aspirations to elite status about this chap, of course.. :)
AIH poined out that the high school from which Stephen Harper graduated is in Toronto.
Yes, Terry Milewski also pointed that (plus the irony of Baird's statement) out on the National last night with a definite smirk. They also ran a high school photo of Harper with a really bad haircut.
I think the Cons' stonewalling of the media may be coming back to haunt them.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/17/kevin-libin-insulted-elites-finally-know-how-the-other-guy-feels
This guy gets it, it is impossible to debate with pro registry people, simply because they have convinced themselves of thier own right righteousness without ever actually looking at real numbers, real facts. Liscensing is constantly confused with registration, the lie of 9000-14000 hits a day never stops making the rounds, the facts don't matter, some of you are simply convinced you know better, the truth not withstanding, it may not be elitism, but it is ignorance certainly borne out of urban group think and yes maybe some of that E word. I know some of you look down at hunters and guns owners, to you we are all neanderthals one step away from spousal murder or worse, check your bias, and then check some facts, it likely won't change anything, like all of us your just a creature of your environment no matter how enlightened you think you are. Enlightenment comes from education and the truth, there is very little of that here and elsewhere on the pro registry side, when it comes to firearms most of you are reading and regurgitating at a grade 2 level.
I am neither urban, or elite. I am a hunter and a gun owner. I understand the concerns of both rural and urban Canadians on this issue. If you think for one moment gun violence or the threats of violence are only an urban phenomena chances are you have never spent a second in rural Canada other than on your way to the cottage.
I see the points most are making in this debate -minus the extreme's on both sides, and that is why I really like the approach I heard Jack Layton take, in person, last night, in a rural riding, where there were all kinds of farmers, hunters and gun owners. It didn't make everyone happy, but it addresses the concerns of the vast bulk of people who are, like me, in the middle on this issue.
"He has a chauffeur! He's beating people up for being elite?"
"You wanna know what elite is? It's John Baird in a tuxedo, going to the National Arts Centre with the Prime Minister's wife on his arm, complaining that the food is not good enough. That's John Baird right there in a nutshell."
— Rick Mercer, CBC News, Thursday September 16, 2010
@ #83
hmm... I think the reason this has gone for six threads is because we have a good cross-section of opinions. I am sure we have people on both sides who have some level of blinkers, but I have seen lots of movement and understanding from most participants. I think your characterization is very unfair.
I think the ambivalence and sympathy a lot of us feel for both sides tends to get chalked up areound here to being NDP supporters or defenders.
But take away the NDP and its the same for me. Since I have the most in common with acivists who passionately want the registry, on whatever terms, I want them to have it regardless of the fact I have never been convinced it has or ever will do what is claimed for it. I would deferr to people wanting it.
BUT- that wasnt my first reaction. Like my neighbours, I was seriously offended by the whole thing. Never mind I have neither guns nor have hunt for a long time back.
Moving forward in time, I hear things around me about the registry and its supporters that I dont agree with. But I dont go there, because I think that their fears are not unreasonable [I dont know any of the wackos], and because the discussion is certain to lead to what is the registry suppossed to do. And I cant argue what I dont beleive in, and agree with my neighbours about what their resentment is grounded in, even if I dont agree with the ultimate expression.
So not wanting to go there has nothing to do with the NDP. Among people I am around, where the NDP fits into this never even comes up. Its just something I have way too much ambivalence about to be going down the road with people about it.
So yes, just in a visceral sense, I'm glad that for once there is somewhere in the 'main discussion' I feel comfortable, and where I see people I respect on both sides feeling that even if they dont agree, this is a step in the right direction. Hertofore there has been none of that, so people appreciate it.
Sounds really Pollyanish, but now that there is something concrete to hang my hopes on, I can see that I always wanted it both ways. I wanted people to have the registry- which even if I dont see it doing anything, I dont think when it comes down to it that it is an imposition. And I wanted to see my neighbours- and by extension/solidarity myself- to feel respected. And there has been none of that. Reflected here in spades, but the part that really mattered was the larger public stage.
ETA: Ceoss-posted with Pogo. Therefore not meant to disagree. But as to whether there has been a lot of understanding and movement in these threads. Id put it more as 'some'. Which is better than the none in the past when this has come up. But I think it was from some individuals, and that the tone didnt make me feel that me and my neighbours were being respected. I get that unexpected pleasure from what has happened on the public stage.
People here may have more broadly moved how they look at the issue, and maybe that is why its quieter now [exhaustion alone never stops thes most passionate tiffs on Babble]. But thats just a possibility, I havent seen much explicit yet.
I've been consciously staying out of this discussion, partly because I don't think there is anything to discuss, since Jack Layton made his decision some time ago, so the question of whether he should have or not is academic.
I do want to say something about KenS's good post at #87. I'm not an NDP supporter, actually. For me it is strictly the issue.
While I am frustrated by some of the misrepresentations I have seen here, that at least comes from ignorance. While members of the public are entitled to their opinions, I expect a higher standard from the government.
What really angers me is that the worst ravings about "taking everyone's guns away" were not just said by these people we call wackos. It is exactly what was said by Liberal ministers at the time they brought in C-68. And the fine points of C-68 show the same arrogance and callous disregard for people. I doubt Chretien seriously thought he could take away everyone's guns, but letting his ministers get away with saying things like that is just as irresponsible an act.
Yet the Liberals are now trying to portray themselves as the voice of reason, and most people engaging in this debate seem to not notice that they are the first ones who voiced these "wacko" opinions.
For the record, I do not agree with those hard-liners. On the other hand, they say it's not paranoia if someone actually is out to get you, so I lay most of the blame for our current situation squarely at the feet of the Liberals. So far as this vote is concerned, I think they have all the credibility of someone who smacks a hive with a stick, and then tries to blame the bees.
Speaking of which, I don't want to stir up any hives with my comment. It's not my intention to insult, but to put the question of wackos and fringe ideas into a bit of perspective.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/17/kevin-libin-insulted-elites-finally-know-how-the-other-guy-feels
This guy gets it, it is impossible to debate with pro registry people, simply because they have convinced themselves of thier own right righteousness without ever actually looking at real numbers, real facts. Liscensing is constantly confused with registration, the lie of 9000-14000 hits a day never stops making the rounds, the facts don't matter, some of you are simply convinced you know better, the truth not withstanding, it may not be elitism, but it is ignorance certainly borne out of urban group think and yes maybe some of that E word. I know some of you look down at hunters and guns owners, to you we are all neanderthals one step away from spousal murder or worse, check your bias, and then check some facts, it likely won't change anything, like all of us your just a creature of your environment no matter how enlightened you think you are. Enlightenment comes from education and the truth, there is very little of that here and elsewhere on the pro registry side, when it comes to firearms most of you are reading and regurgitating at a grade 2 level.
I was born and bread in small town Cape Breton. I did lots of hunting, fishing, and camping ... I've also had a friend point a rifle at me, run the sights up and down my body from head to toe, then when he had just moved the rifle just in front of my feet the rifle went off ... he was sure he had the safety on!!!
I have three friends I went to school with from that small town (less than 1000 people) who committed suicide with rifles .. no, sorry, only two of them committed suicide, one of them failed and now has part of his lower face missing.
I have no problem with people wanting to hunt .. I personally have no need for it anymore, but I understand that others may appreciate the sport.
But just because I now live in the city has no bearing on my opinion on the need for strong firearm licensing and regulation laws ... yeah, maybe todays' youth and hunters are more responsible than they were back in my day, but if they are that is because since then there are much better licensing and registration requirements and enforcement... I see no need to go back to the "good old days" of my youth when "firearm responsibility" meant trying to stay as far from the woods as possible during hunting season.
Citizens take responsibility for their actions only after they are "trained" in what to "DO" in order to take responsibility, "KNOW" what will happen if they don't, and even then only if there is a system in place that keeps an eye on them to make sure that they are doing what they have been trained to KNOW and DO.
I think some people who have grown up in the "new world" of PAL and the registry simply believe that the responsibility they rightfully claim to exercise is simply a "natural fact of life" that would take place whether there were firearm laws or not ... this is NOT the case, I, and anyone else who was brought up before the 70's and 80's can probably easily attest to that.
Yes, there is some confusion between licensing and the registry .. but both sides are guilty of that confusion. Some on the pro-registry side might believe that killing the registry means there will be no training or background checks for licensing .. some on the anti-registry side might believe that the registry is only there so the government can kick down their doors and steal their weapons ... but I don't think it's a valid claim to simply put all the blame for lack of reasonableness on the pro-registry side ... the anti-registry side seem to pretty good at missing the point themselves..
In this long-running discussion, I'm somewhat puzzled that no one has responded to my little essay, either to agree or disagree. How did I manage to silence everyone?
Wilf, there are a number of us who have put things out there that have been left unanswered. I think it speaks to the nature of this discussion.
maybe becuase it was as offensive and full of stereotypes as nope's post above.
Little Lord Fautleroy is gay? Who knew?
Geez, six threads and I haven't posted on this topic. As one of those western hayseeds who is supposedly the object of all these political machinations, I suppose it's my duty to state my opinion on the rifle and shotgun registry.
I don't care one way or the other.
So a guy has to register his .306 or .22? Big deal, I have to register my car.
So nobody will have to register firearms? Big deal, I don't register my bike.
As one of those city slicker elitists. I am really having trouble getting worked up over this as well. To me, I instinctively have an aversion to greater regulation, particularly anything to do with the police having increased powers of regulation and surveiliance. Mostly this seems like a great way for the parties to play at politics without having the threat of actually making the government fall, or anything dangerous like that.
Come to think of it, I haven't heard a single person raise this issue in public except on this board. A bit of a fake issue, as far as I can tell.
Again, I ask those who are suggesting this is a Feminist issue, is it the fact that the registry has reduced violence against women, or has it just reduced gun crimes against women? I am looking for a significant reduction in the mortality rate here, for example.
Please don't jump on me when I ask this question...
I support gun control. I support bans on specific types of guns. I support background checks and required gun safety courses before someone is allowed to purchase a rifle. But when it comes to public safety and crime prevention (which is why the registry was created), does the registry work? Does having a registry increase public safety and prevent crime?
If so, how?
I don't see a big deal with people taking some time to register their firearms. We do so for other things. So the whole "attack" on rural and aborignal people doesn't wash with me. But do people support the registry in the name of "gun control" when it may do little to actually prevent crime or keep people safe?
I'm not trying to be facetious but I haven't heard an actual answer as to how a registry makes our communities safer.
On the assumption that the bill to kill the long gun registry is defeated, what steps shculd be taken to fix the registyr? Jack had some comments about using ticketing rather than criminal charges, recogniizng aboriginal and first nations people, some slack for inherited weapons etc.. What may be a seoparet dicussion is imprving the wy the licensing, PAL and all, could work better.For example theres eems to be a lot of problems with the requirment to indicate if you have a "spouse" when you get a PAL
Then, what are the links betwen a PAL and the firearms registry? It would seem there is a legal obligation on whoever transfers a fiream to someone -a gun shop owner who sells a firewarm to a customer, a parent gifting a child (who is a presuambly a mature adult) - to ensure the new owner has a PAL, is prperly trained and licencsed and it shoudl be doable and mandatory to have a record of the transfer and the license. So if a gun shop owner sells 100 guns there should be a relativey decent record of each transaction = Hank with PAL xxx bought two shotguns, make and model xxx, Maria with PAL xyz bought a handgun male and model xyz, and those transaction records could go into the registry or some agency at minimal cost and paperwork to the parties. If Hank then gives one of the shotguns, registered to him , to his daughter, Sue, he should be required to provide the registry or some agency with a record of the transfer, including the PAL of the new owner, his daugther. Such registrtion, tranfer records, should be cheap and simple, a minimum of paperwork and delay-something like an on-line or over the counter form saying I Hank PAL #xxx tranfered ownership of the shot gun make and model...to Sue, PAL xyz. here's ten bucks.
There coudl be some minor penalties, say a fine, if someone is in posession of an unregistered firearm, and perhaps s more seveer penalty for the previous owner who did not register the transfer - e,g, if Hank did not register the tranfser to Sue, both Sue and Hank would face a fine, when Sue is found in posession of a gun , if the gun shop owner did not register the sale to Hank, the gun shop owner and Hank would face penalties.perhaps even to the point of the gun shop owner no longer being allowed to sell firearms. Side discussion onthe rpoblemof gusn smuggled across the border.
Then, our criminal code has penlties for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. One of the factors in sentencing should be whether or not this is an unregistered firearm or illegally acquired firearm and penlties for the provider of a firearm used in a crime , who did not properly register the tranfer or provided the gn to an unlicensed user. So if Sue uses the shotgun her dad Hank gave her to hold up a convenience store she would face a penalty for use of the firearm in a crime, an extra penalty fo Sue if the firearm ws not registerd to her and a penalty for Hank, the registered owner of the firearm, if he did not register the transfer to Sue.
Anything to discuss here?
So what we are saying here is that when the police go to someones home who has a registered fire-arm the police come prepared on the premise that the occupant is armed and dangerous? Has there been any survey on the number of unarmed people who have been shot by police responding to complaints against people who have registered fire-arms?
@ peterjcassidy
Removing and altering some of the questions in 16 d) and f) of the PAL form would take care of my main concerns.
I have posted that in more detail elsewhere, I wouldn't want to offend or stereotype anyone by repeating that here. (PMed you)
Other than that, I believe there is still a provision in C-68 that makes it a crime to not assist a firearms inspection officer (in effect making refusal to self-incriminate a crime). I don't have the details on that in front of me. If it is still on the books it is certainly something that would fall in a charter challenge, but since it is something that some opponents make a big deal about, it might be something the government would want to be pro-active about and correct.
maybe becuase it was as offensive and full of stereotypes as nope's post above.
What do you find offensive? The truth is not offensive, and if you bothered to look you look you would find that many of the pro registry arguments are tainted and some are outright lies, but yet some of you lap them right up. I find it strange that someone so eager to believe the lies that politicians tell could be offended that easily, I don't suppose you believe chief blair on the registry but were calling him a pig after the g20? I know some here were, btw he represents the same organization the was at one time against enshrining the charter of rights and freedoms in the constitution, and there is no possible way that most of them being in liberal cities could ever be politiaclly tainted on the current issue either..or maybe the just want all the power they can get. You don't want to here the truth, and yea, that is offensive.
This is just too juicy for words...I can just imagine the scene at Liberal HQ when Jack Layton announced that he had the votes to prevent the gun registry from being scrapped - the tears, the people dejectedly kicking the wall, the cries of "Curses! Foiled again!", people punching the wall in frustration that yet again a Liberal scheme to go after the NDP has crashed and burned. It just isn't fair is it...
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/09/gunvotewatch-hey-remem...
"Well, the NDP leader's Toronto staff can cancel any plans they might've had to serve coffee and muffins to all those GTA-area Young Liberals this afternoon, as today's event -- which was featured in OotD -- has been called off due to .. lack of interest? Not exactly -- more like a change in tactics -- and, more importantly, target -- at least according to YLC national director Keith Torrie, who says that they've decided to "shift [their] energy and fight to save the gun registry. "
...
"
And in other news....
Personally I won't crack the champagne until Wednesday night (as I said already) but perhaps some in Ottawa know something we do not, because it seems like the proverbial prima donna has sung:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/17/harper-long-gun-registry.htm...
I remember a few years ago he made a similar menacing threat about people (presumably CWB board members) he felt were preventing his getting rid of the Wheat Board; he said "anyone who stands in the way is going to get walked over" (I have a recording of it somewhere).
Starting at 9:13 your local time on CBC Radio The House:
NDP riding assoc president in Thunder Bay on talking about the gun registry there, on the ground.
Followed by Charlie Angus at 9:24.
You can get it live streamed from the local CBC station 9:13 in that time zone. Dont know if or how it can be picked up from archives later.
Lordy, again at 10:10, the registry is the lead-off content issue of whatever Brent Bambury's new program is called.
article:
By most accounts, Jack Layton should be trying as hard as he can to turn the page on the gun-registry issue.
It has divided his caucus. It has prompted an unseemly feeding frenzy among the other parties hoping to benefit from NDP disarray.
And it has turned the NDP into the centre of negative attention in the blogosphere and the media just as the fall parliamentary session kicks off.
But, for better or for worse, the NDP Leader is doing all he can to keep the issue alive - partly because he promised his rural MPs he would do so, but also because it gives him a platform to play up his consensus-building persona and contrast it deeply with the Harper Conservatives.
"It's battlefield politics versus an attempt to find and develop and nurture a common ground that I guess we're emphasizing here," Mr. Layton said in a wide-ranging interview on Friday to talk about strategy going into the fall session of Parliament.
The NDP Leader doesn't hesitate to talk about his plan to keep the registry alive so he can "fix" it.
Heard Charlie Angus on the House this morning. He did a stellar job
@ KenS
That Globe article is kind of silly. Surely until the vote is finished people would expect him to give it a lot of attention, and unless he wants to be tarred as a crass politician he won't just bury it afterwards. If he ignored the issue people would accuse him of being blase and not caring
I have read plenty of slurs to that effect, evidence that this is all just as much crass politics as it is about the registry.
So no, I am sure it is not an issue that he would have taken on by choice, but you don't usually get to pick your battles.
In any case, thanks for posting it. It is yet another weird twist in this story.
continued here