babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
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: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
what? talking when ya don't seem to know much is a little off putting.
all people who own guns in Canada must have a PAL and a fire arms acquisition permit they're the 'drivers' license that you seem to think gun owners don't have. the right comparrison is a vehicle having to be registered and licensed before you drive it on public roads. if you can make a compare at all. 'cause ya can still own vehicles and never drive 'em.
You're the one who brought up the Liberal Registry. But in any case, this comes back to the simple fact that there's going to be some sort of new Registry proposal come 2015. Hence, I find it odd that when Mulcair is asked a hypothetical question about whether or not a new registry ought to be introduced, the typical response of the opponents of the Liberal Registry was to tilt at the straw man of the hypothetical registry and apply the characteristics of the Liberal one to it as a reason for not having a new one. As such your "team" bases their defence of Hyer on this basis - that someone the very idea of even bringing in a new registry is bad and shouldn't even be contemplated and contemplating is somehow insensitive to rural New Democrats. It's an interesting, albeit tiresome, rhetorical trick to get what one wants when one is in the minority.
WHO is defending Hyer?
Eh?
dp fu
@ Van
My position about Mulcair's comments has nothing at all to do with Hyer's decision.
And this is the second time you have read shit into my comments that wasn't there. Stop it.
Though I might ask, based on your last sentence, what your position is on tyranny of the majority, as opposed to doing what is equitable.
And Mulcair did not 'ask a hypothetical question'.
He said there WILL be a new LGR proposed by 2015.
And the fact that it will not be the same, won't have the same flaws, is well understand.
The question is whether it is prudent for us to go there at all. Its being assumed it is.
80% of the population is urban. So no sweat, eh?
If people want to show WHAT a new LGR might look like, and HOW we are going to handle it.... I'll take a look. There may be a way. I'll think about it.
But that is not what we are getting, or EVER have got.
But thankfully, Nathan Cullen has a position of influence that will demand sense be DEMONSTRATED, not just stated as a fait accompli that all you smart asses just KNOW is going to work for us.
Contrary to popular belief guns weren't invented to shoot antique cans. When you have something more interesting to say than a flawed comparison between cars and guns, I'll get back to you.
Why wouldn't there be a new LGR proposal? If the majority supports it, there will be. About the only thing debatable is the utility of having it in the platform. You don't think it's helpful, I do. This is about the only thing you've said on the matter that is reasonable.
Irrelevent. Owning a gun isn't a right. It isn't comprable to something like gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, language, etc. It's embaressing that you'd even pose this. A policy issue, such as this, isn't something that applies to the 'tyranny of the majority' philosophy.
Edited to add: Nor do I even think it's an issue related to freedom from tyranny, like the right to due process, a reasonable level of freedom of speech and association, etc. Actually, I'd say without a registry gun owners are closer to inflicting a certain tyranny of the minority on the majority, than non-gun owners inflicting a registry on gun owners are.
@ Van
You have already said you don't care what the details of the now-dead registry were.
Perhaps you should do a bit of reading, and educate yourself about the many objections to that piece of legislation which had nothing to do with the issue of firearms safety.
THen perhaps we can talk.
wtf? you're the one who made the drivers license compare not me. see my quote of your own quiote for evidence. i was the one taking exception to your flawed fucking compare. though i am happy to note you now see it is a flawed compare. if there can be a happy position amongst your condescending crap.
l'il pissy because ya didn't know gun owners were already licensed are ya? too bad for you the air is gone from your sails but an acceptance you're now wrong on several accounts shouldn't be hard for ya.
Seems to me this is a place the NDP needs to modernize its language. The word registry is now a code word. It has too much emotion invested in it. Talk about keeping Canadians safer by dealing with gun crime, guns of all types and all kinds of crimes, not just a hold up with hand guns. This is the way to move forward. Using the word registry is a loser all around for the NDP.
Why not simply have a policy of having a national long gun registry that provinces can choose to either opt in or opt out of - that way if Quebec wants all guns in Quebec to be registered, the feds will help thme to do it and if Sask wants nothing to do with a gun registry - they are free to opt out - that way everybody's happy!
Closing time.