Gun-registry continued

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Gun-registry continued

from here

remind remind's picture

Agree with putting pressure on Cons MPs, who reside in cities, even if they do not want to challenge Harper by voting against it,  getting 3 or so, from urban ridings, not to show up, should be relatively easy.

 

Slumberjack

The only way to convince an urban Con MP to represent and speak for their constituents on any given issue is to insert ones hand and arm through a spare orifice and move their lips as a ventriloquist would.  When you have a revolving door between industry and government, the will of the electorate is subordinated to the sort of ambition that sees ones full time job as an elected representative being put to good use by feathering the nest, being a suck hole to corporate benefactors in other words.

remind remind's picture

Huh, you speak of getting the MP to go along with their constiuents as a good thing, that should happen, all the time, but yet when it comes to the NDP, it seems people are willing for them to subvert their constituents wishes.

Seems like a double standard to me. At best.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
Seems like a double standard to me. At best.

If their constituents have previously agreed to register everything else in their lives such as births, deaths, marriages, cars, snow mobiles, tractors, pets, themselves, etc, yet object to registering their firearms as a result of mainstream propaganda drifting up from the south through mouthpiece Con party talking heads about cold dead hands, gubberment intrusion and what not, at some point you'd have to consider them incapable of formulating their own sensible opinions and decisions, to the point where the interests of public safety should be seen as the primary concern, over and above whatever gibberish they've learned to regurgitate. Not much of a choice i'm afraid.  Participating in facade of representative demagoguery, or catering to an infantilized mass of propaganda ridden drones.

ottawaobserver

Ah, but remind has identified the key contradiction in all these arguments, hasn't she.

People assume there is no dissent within the Conservative caucus, but I don't believe that's the case: we just don't hear about it.  The urban Conservative MPs would be the most insecure right now ... especially the ones in Quebec.  Ratchetting up the pressure on them ... particularly now that the Cdn Police Association is preparing to launch a campaign on the issue ... will definitely have an impact, even if we don't hear about it -- and also increase the likelihood that we will.

Michael Chong in Wellington-Halton Hills is another one to focus on, and at least he's had the decency to resign from cabinet on principle before, so would be a more sympathetic place to start.

Don't you think that after so many bone-headed moves by the Prime Minister that his caucus must be restive?  There's some evidence that they gave him a blast at the summer national caucus meeting in Ottawa.  Just think: two prorogations, the Muskoka G8 spending fiasco in Tony Clement's riding, the "fake lake", and now the census decision ... there are definitely fissures building up there, and job one is to bust them open.

At the moment, they reason that if they don't hang together, they'll hang separately.  Once people are convinced they'll hang separately if they hang together, they'll break from the pack.

remind remind's picture

hmmmm @ slumberjack's post

6079_Smith_W

@ Slumberjack

Not to speak for remind, but I think she is talking about NDP politicians being held to a different standard than Conservative and Liberal ones.

But as to your post, I think ridiculing people you disagree with is not the way to deal with a complex and divisive issue like this. It is just a way of closing your own mind to what people are actually saying. I don't want to repeat myself, but if you read what I have posted I don't think it is all gibberish, and I don't think I take marching orders from south of the border, and I do support the registry.

(edit)

Approaching the issue with a respect for others' positions is also essential if you ever want to change minds and swing some of those votes in our direction.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Slumberjack

Not to speak for remind, but I think she is talking about NDP politicians being held to a different standard than Conservative and Liberal ones.

As my children were wont to say when younger: "Well duhhhhhhhh!!"

That's exactly what this is about. Holding NDP MPs to a higher standard than Cons and Libs. Which is what Layton and Comartin are doing when they seek to persuade them to do the right thing. We should support their efforts.

When was the last time a Conservative MP defied Harper's wishes on anything? If there's a precedent for that, then maybe one can spend a few spare moments trying to pressure them to support the registry. But tell me who believes that will have any effect.

By the way, 6079, if you think there are problems with the registry (which there ARE - primarily, that it does little to control guns!), will you at least acknowledge that in order to improve it, it must absolutely without fail be preserved first? Will you acknowledge that if a majority of MPs, with support from all parties (except of course the BQ, which has been solid on this issue) were to kill the registry, it would be (correctly) interpreted by everyone as a setback and defeat for control of firearms, period - and not a step toward amendment and reform?

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Yes. I have said probably half a dozen times already that I support the registry and that I hope it is upheld in this vote - and not simply because I would like to see to see Harper handed his ass on a platter - I think registration of firearms is a good and reasonable thing.

I think it's unfortunate that this issue's use as a political weapon means that politicians are probably looking more at the polls (or in some cases a flipped coin, I'm sure) than the actual thing they are voting on.

 

Slumberjack

There are compelling reasons as to why it isn't a particularly good idea in every instance to formulate sound national policy through constituency consultation. As for rural NDP MPs voting down the registry along with urban Harperite MPs, whipped votes are a fairly common occurrence regardless of feedback from the riding. Why should this be different than any other time where the public is left out of the decision making process?

Different standards? Allow me to take the spoon out of my throat. There is a standard influenced by a peculiar irrationality which suggests that urbanized central Canadian bureaucrats are out to disarm everyone and trample on an imported sense of a non-existent right to bear arms..the talking points are quite similar in many respects, and a sensible (not perfect) public safety initiative which hinders no one from accessing and owning long guns for appropriate use. The difference is in having the will to maintain and protect a reasonable standard that is under threat from those who have no ideological standards whatsoever where personal benefit is involved. Too much to ask for, is it?

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think it's unfortunate that this issue's use as a political weapon means that politicians are probably looking more at the polls (or in some cases a flipped coin, I'm sure) than the actual thing they are voting on.

If the party leader whips the vote, there is no need to look at polls or flip coins. MPs just vote as a matter of discipline. Do you support a whipped vote on this issue by the NDP? The reason I ask about the NDP should be relatively obvious. They're the only ones whose leader has supported the registry but with MPs who have voted against the leader's wishes and who plan to do so again. That's why women's groups, union groups, and others are pleading with Jack Layton to whip the vote. Their plea to Ignatieff was successful - why not to Layton too?

Unfortunately, some people interpret that as "following the Liberals' agenda". That's incomprehensible to me, because if Layton whips the vote, the Liberals have nothing more to accuse the NDP of - and they'll just have to worry about their own MPs breaking ranks.

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

No, I wouldn't have a problem with a whipped vote at all, and I think would have been the best thing, to secure the registry. But I can see why Layton decided not to. I think part of it is the question of why this bill was proposed now.

How much of this skirmish is Harper wanting to fulfill this dream of his (since he has so far failed on others, like killing the Wheat Board), and how much of it is just an attempt to undermine the NDP support base in preparation for an election. I have no doubt Harper had both things in mind when his MP brought this private members' bill forward.

If Layton were to whip the vote the NDP would without question pay a political price. Would it have been better to whip and save MPs the personal responsibility for the vote? How much of a difference would it make in terms of voter backlash? Would there have been MPs who would defy their leader and what could Layton do about it? I have no doubt all these things were discussed before Layton made his decision.

Debater

remind wrote:

Agree with putting pressure on Cons MPs, who reside in cities, even if they do not want to challenge Harper by voting against it,  getting 3 or so, from urban ridings, not to show up, should be relatively easy.

I agree with this.  Everyone should be pressuring the urban Conservative MP's .  I don't see why only the Liberals and NDP should have to be sweating this vote.  The Conservatives may not want to admit they are whipping their caucus, but it is unlikely that 144 MP's all believe the same thing.  As Stockholm said on the previous thread, why shouldn't the Con MP's in Quebec City, the 905 and Vancouver not feel the heat?

thorin_bane

ok my pet peeve Evan soloman is being useless as usual. Shelly Glover states" I have spent the entire length of my 19 year carrier as an officer dealing with this issue" further she can't site any of studies blair mentioned(nice sidestep) 4 million a year is a joke she say this money is needed for front line policing...ok then lobby to legalize pot and free up those resources for other police efforts you jackass.

 

Ok evan why don't you ask how she has been against the registry for 19 years when it isn't even 19 years old. Nevermind the 2 years or so she has been elected. Or did i miss the mulroney conservatives putting in this legislation? I am tired of the use of politics and outright lying on the air while this slides with useless people like soloman as the host. Make no mistake he is a host, he isn't a journalist or even a reporter. How do you have a debate when shit like this goes on.

Debater

It's time to start asking the Cons whether they have polls for Quebec City, the 905 and the Vancouver suburbs that show people there want the registry abolished.  Because so far the Con MP's in those areas are voting to abolish it.  Can they prove that this is really what their constituents want?

ottawaobserver

I find it ironic that the CBC Power and Politics show has a short segment called "Too Much Information" at the end, because so far as I'm concerned, the rest of the show could be called "Too Little Information" (and too much Evan Solomon).  I love politics but I bloody hate that show now.  Banal banter from moron spin doctors moderated by an idiot.  Blech.

Fidel

What have the Liberals done for women and children in Canada since 1993? A: -->0 The NDP has to turn this gun registry diversion around and use it to their advantage.

thorin_bane

Seriously how much worse is fooligan and need to reid than travers and lessard. yeah yeah they are liberals. Fine bring back don martin I don't care even andrew coyne is a step up from this partisan hackery...i am not a big fan of Ian Capstick but he puts the boots to the NDP if they deserve it.

This crossfire like "dont miss out on the power panel so stay tuned"*insert asshole smirk* drives me crazy. When rosie does the program she drops the stupid quips and asks a lot more pointed questions. Especially the "You are where you need to be"..."Thats a lovely purple snake Evan, you even managed to stay mostly in the lines". Is how I feel whne he looks all proud about his rediculous catch phrase.

It should have been sue  bonner with the show to start with. She usually did quite a good job filling in for the brooooadcaaaast when don was away.

I am of two minds on the registry. I don't want to see it scrapped, but I can see some room for adjustment. But as always with the haprer crowd all pretense of anything canadian(you know compromise) goes out the window for the black and white, with us or against us propositions.

Why can we no longer have any discussion about anything involving the government. No we can't just fix a few errors instead  the baby goes out with the bathwater. Every fucking time. Sorry about my french..but seriously every time its an either or proposition and nothing else...look at healthcare, or the census...I mean that is on things they actually get a chance to debate most of the time its backdoor during pro-rogue or during any recess where they aren't under extreme scrutiny.

thorin_bane

Wow rare double post stupid bell time outs.

Slumberjack

Yeah, I just saw Solomon waving around throughout the interview with Bill Blair, an unscientific online survey arranged and conducted by a cop out west, who also happens to moonlight as a hunting outfitter, which Solomon neglected to mention to his viewers.  This was apparently supposed to represent rank and file cops opinion that the registry should be scrapped, while implying that it represented a disconnect between beat cops and the brass.  Anyone who can stomach an entire hour of this bozo should also enjoy being urinated on.  Speaking of feeling dirty, is it troubling anyone else to find themselves on the same side of an issue with Bill Blair?

Debater
Fidel

I wonder what percentage of guns used to commit crimes are registered guns?

thorin_bane

Slumberjack wrote:

Yeah, I just saw Solomon waving around throughout the interview with Bill Blair, an unscientific online survey arranged and conducted by a cop out west, who also happens to moonlight as a hunting outfitter, which Solomon neglected to mention to his viewers.  This was apparently supposed to represent rank and file cops opinion that the registry should be scrapped, while implying that it represented a disconnect between beat cops and the brass.  Anyone who can stomach an entire hour of this bozo should also enjoy being urinated on.  Speaking of feeling dirty, is it troubling anyone else to find themselves on the same side of an issue with Bill Blair?

I have to go with the stopped clock phrase. I may not like it but Yes there is some value in the registry and what blair says. At the same time I know police like to curb anyone from having the same powers they do.

I think there has to be a compramise between rural on the farm use and guns in the cities. It is two separate issues at play and the long gun is trying to hit both at the same time. Hence the divide.

Slumberjack

thorin_bane wrote:
I think there has to be a compramise between rural on the farm use and guns in the cities. It is two separate issues at play and the long gun is trying to hit both at the same time. Hence the divide.

No compromise is necessary.  Long gun owning city dwellers would most likely travel out to the rural areas to use them in the same manner as they do out in the sticks.  Unless long guns in the hands of city dwellers represents more of a threat to public safety than armed country folk.  But then of course such a discussion would have include the reasons why one would believe that, and how two different tracking systems based on population density and, I dunno, say demographics, would better serve the interests of public safety.

Debater

I don't understand why people object to registering their guns.  Why is this even an issue?  People have to register all sorts of other things.  What's so difficult about filling out a form?

It's not as if people are being asked to give up their guns or as if there is a ban on hunting.

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Fidel wrote:

I wonder what percentage of guns used to commit crimes are registered guns?

Get rid of the gun registry and the number is sure to be reduced... The value of registering guns goes beyond the number of registered guns that may be used in the commission of a crime. How many are involved in domestic abuse situations? My family has had tragic experience with that statistic. There is value in registering firearms, of all types.

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Debater wrote:

I don't understand why people object to registering their guns.  Why is this even an issue?  People have to register all sorts of other things.  What's so difficult about filling out a form?

It's not as if people are being asked to give up their guns or as if there is a ban on hunting.

The objection is in the cost and the time and trouble required to complete the task. In my mind a small price to pay, but for some and insurmountable obstacle and an infringement on their right to bear arms as inherited from the media in the Excited States.

Fidel

Good post, thorin_bane. I've always enjoyed reading your comments.

thorin_bane

Fidel wrote:

I wonder what percentage of guns used to commit crimes are registered guns?

Many i would suppose. Most violence is whithin a family home and with legit guns. Of course the gang guns are supplied by you guessed it drugs. Some of which could be legalised to hurt both organised crime and gun coming into this country that could fall into criminal hands. But you don't see a lobby from the police to do this because a lot of officers would either have to shift to a boring desk job or back on th beat punishing speeders and jaywalkers....

Somehow I cant see them having layoffs given the phoney editorial I saw in our local conservative paper this wekend talking about our HUGE crime rates in comparison to 1962(why 1962...oh yeah our lowest on record violent crimes) if you want to talk about unreported crimes, and violent ones at that, then look to 1962. Without the lawyer, sue your ass off for anything,  mentality we have in this country currently, back then a fist fight was a fist fight and not something you went to jail for automtically.

I mean my in-law was charged with assualt because he pried his exs hand off his car, because she wouldn't let go of the car when he was driving away after a disagreement while picking up the kids(which was lawyer related to start with). He pulled her hand off before she could fall into the ditch(they have a big ditch with stones in the bottum, if she fell it could have been very bad) but is "a criminal" because of this?(I know I know its one side of the story but my 4  nephews at least backed it up) Yet some guy punches another guy in a bar 50 years ago and its just a scrap no need to file a report unless someone was actually injured(like broken jaw or cut etc).

Clearly we don't want a scoiety that is tolerant of rampant bar fights, but the other extreme has crept in where spitting is actually charged as a violent act(assault). So yeah you will see a huge increase in overall crimes if these lead to actual charges.

My inlaw gave away his 2 antique guns because a he didn't use them(he once hunted some 30 odd years ago) and b he didn't want to be bothered to register them. He is a really non violent person and a vegan so one can see how this is a criminal and yet one guy clubs another in a different era and its ok. Stats can show the differance in social acceptability of crime as well.

Today we are a lot less tolerant and the crime has fallen from 15 years ago dramatically. So it makes prisons a harder sell. The long gun registry is just one of the things to whip up libertarians and rural people or those that hunt every so often. Most city dwellers that have long guns hunt but in many cases of family violence, guns can be used as a threat wheather its long gun or not. While some say there is no reason and the PAL is suppose to do the work, then why not combine the two into a more useful full spectrum license.

We do license and regulate all hand guns and semi auto already..while fully auto is outright banned. So if we just combine it with the PAL to make city rules tougher making a little less regulated on the farm, and again deal with the organised drug rings by legalising some, it would do a great deal into curbing many gun related crime and making for some sensible policy as oppose to reactionary.

Remember security is pretty much an illusion, but many city people need it. Same as the why people continue to vote for the fiscally responsible conservatives who are tough on crime .

thorin_bane

Thanks fidel its mutual. I think there is merit to both sides of the debate. I live in the city but I see both ends.

Most people on babble have contibuted to me being a more...critical thinker. Not always the best for my friends and family. But hey too bad. Wake up and start realizing how the world operates. Sometimes I find myself insufferable though.  think you guys have given me too much information!

I have since passed on my critical thought disease to any I can influence to look at things not as presented but as they are. See mainstream media for crappy presentations.

Fidel

Debater wrote:

I don't understand why people object to registering their guns.  Why is this even an issue?  People have to register all sorts of other things.  What's so difficult about filling out a form?

It's not as if people are being asked to give up their guns or as if there is a ban on hunting.

I always follow the rules whatever they are. Most gun owners I know are responsible, law abiding citizens. I suppose few people observed Marc Lepine blossoming into the anti-feminist that he was when he murdered those women. I think there was more wrong there than Marc Lepine's gun obtained legally, The problem was Marc Lepine himself, a product of society. The problem is that we have too many people running society who actually don't believe in it. Politicians, rightwing think tanks, and private sector lobbyists, and the private sector itself tend to work together to undermine the proper functioning of society. There are some well known politicians on the right who have stated clearly that they don't believe in society. When society breaks down, the results are not good.

trippie

I heard on the CBC the other day that the number of long guns used in crimes is 70%. The source was a police study or report of some kind.

 

I'm still having a hard time understnading what the big deal is about having a gun. They are made for one one thing, killing.

 

What's so hard about regisering it anyways? What's the big deal?

 

I've used guns before and killed animals. But as a young boy I quickly realizes that having a gun and using it was anti-thesis to my nature.

 

Ya, there is a thrill shooting one and hitting targets. But what is that thrill really? Is it a sick sense of life, a warper outlook?

 

Why have a gun if you don' t need to hunt to live?

 

What a few guys out in the wilderness is reason to through out all forms of control?

Debater

My Cat Knows Better wrote:

Debater wrote:

I don't understand why people object to registering their guns.  Why is this even an issue?  People have to register all sorts of other things.  What's so difficult about filling out a form?

It's not as if people are being asked to give up their guns or as if there is a ban on hunting.

The objection is in the cost and the time and trouble required to complete the task. In my mind a small price to pay, but for some and insurmountable obstacle and an infringement on their right to bear arms as inherited from the media in the Excited States.

Yes, the NRA and Republican Party are partially responsible for the problem we have in Canada, it seems.

Fidel

I think it could be partially because of those guys and their wacky views that I feel the need to own guns.  That and for when the guvmint goes bad. They're not going to make Soylent Green outa me. Not before I make it to the Exchange. I'll tell everyone. I'll tell them everything...

Voodoorhythm

@ Unionist

There is plenty of precedent of conservatives defying Harper's wishes, if one bothers to look. (c-201, c-302, c-384, c-470, c-474, likely others - I haven't gone through the whole list and I feel like I've made the point I intended to.) The point being that despite the popular perception they're free to vote as they please.  Whether or not the views of candidates are carefully screened prior to nomination so as to avoid dissenting votes whenever possible... that seems pretty likely.

 

@ Trippie

You either misheard or misinterpreted.  I'm not sure exactly whether you meant 70% of long guns are involved in crime, or 70% of gun crimes involve long guns.  Either way, you're off base.  Only 1/3 of murders in Cananda involve a firearm of any kind.  2/3 of those involve hanguns.  Therefore, 1/3 of 1/3 (or 1/9) of murders in Canada involve long guns.  With murder by long gun being that unlikely, even adding in armed robbery etc., it can't possibly reach 70%.  If you meant it the other way, there is somewhere in the range of 6,500,000 long guns in Canada.  If 70% of those are used in crimes, that would mean several million crimes committed each year with long guns, which is obviously not the case.

 

There're several shooting sports in the Olympics (biathalon most obviously, as well as some target shooting events with which I'm not terribly familiar).  That, to me, would seem to be a reasonable non-sustinence hunting reason for owning a gun.  The thrill is the same thrill you get from any other competition.  Do you think a biathelete gets some kind of sociopathic thrill and a sprinter gets a "normal" thrill?

 

Anyhow,

The "big deal" with the registry is that we're spending time and money on a program that hasn't shown itself to e the least bit effective.  Overall suicide numbers have remained steady since it's inception.  The murder rate has increased (1.73 in 2003, 1.82 in 2004, 1.98 in 2007) during the time the registry has been in effect (Still lower than mid 90's numbers though - perhaps some other gun control measures have proven effective).  There have been mass shooting since the registry began.  So, it has failed to curtail suicides and homicides (mass and otherwise).

The question then, is why continue something that isn't working? Why not channel all that effort into programs that will be effective?

 

 

 

Stockholm

BTW: Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that its going to make any material difference to anyone whether the gun registry lives or dies? If you are a gun owner - the reality is that having the gun registry is really not a big deal and registering guns is not really that onerous. On the other hand, can anyone keep a straight face and try to claim that keeping the gun registry (which btw is already virtually dead anyways because it hasn't been enforced at all for about 5 years) is actually going to prevent a single solitary gun-related crime?

Its all about symbolism - its just a proxy war where supporting the gun registry is a "code" for being a condescending urban elitist who looks down your nose at people living in rural areas for whom having a shot gun and hunting is a way of life AND where opposing the gun registry is a "code" for being a paranoic trigger happy Canadian version of a Tea party activist who is indifferent  to people getting shot in urban centres.

Its not about the actual issue its just an elaborate proxy war - and the Tories are only too happy to try to polarize the issue and make it as dividive as possible. But let's be clear the SUBSTANCE of the issue is almost non-existent. As an urban dweller who has never shot a gun in my life - will my life change one iota if the gun registry is scrapped - NO. In the end, what do I care?

I find so much of the rhetoric on this issue to be so overheated that it is an insult to my ingtelligence - what with people implying that either you want to see every long gun in the country registered or else you condone violence against women and the actions of Marc Lepine (btw: I have yet to hear any argument as to how the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique would have been prevented if there had been a gun registry). A lot of people equate the "gun registry" with "gun control" - when one has nothing to do with the other. The gun registry does nothing to prevent people from owning as many guns as they want - we already have pretty strict laws in Canada on gun control with everyone needing a permit to fire a gun etc...in fact the gun laws in Canada that have been in place for about the last 70 years already go far beyond what even the most aggressive advocates of gun "control" have proposed in the US!

I think we should all take a deep breath and recognize that this is an issue where good people can disagree.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

BTW: Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that its going to make any material difference to anyone whether the gun registry lives or dies? If you are a gun owner - the reality is that having the gun registry is really not a big deal and registering guns is not really that onerous. On the other hand, can anyone keep a straight face and try to claim that keeping the gun registry (which btw is already virtually dead anyways because it hasn't been enforced at all for about 5 years) is actually going to prevent a single solitary gun-related crime?

Which is pretty disgraceful and something that the other parties should use against the Conservatives.  We have a supposedly law and order party which doesn't even enforce the law and has encouraged people to break it.

thorin_bane

Yeah but thats OK because they are doing it.

Unionist

Voodoorhythm wrote:

@ Unionist

There is plenty of precedent of conservatives defying Harper's wishes, if one bothers to look. (c-201, c-302, c-384, c-470, c-474, likely others - I haven't gone through the whole list and I feel like I've made the point I intended to.) The point being that despite the popular perception they're free to vote as they please.

Well, I started with Bill C-474, and this is what the CCPA website said:

Quote:
  “This is the first time a bill to change the rules on GMOs [genetically-modified organisms] has passed second reading,” says Sharratt. It’s an historical victory in itself that came about because the NDP, the Bloc Québecois, and most of the Liberal MPs voted in favour of the Bill, while the Conservatives voted against it. The vote was close (153 to 134) and, says Sharratt, Liberal leader “Michael Ignatieff left just before the vote and didn’t take a stand on the issue.”

Am I supposed to check your whole list for accuracy? I'm sorry, but I've never heard of a Conservative MP defying Harper's express wishes in a vote. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I did ask for an example, didn't I?

ETA: On further checking, there are definitely Private Members' Bills in Voodoorhythm's list where Conservatives voted differently from others - e.g., the Bloc member's "Right to Die with Dignity" bill, where Lawrence Cannon and Josée Verner voted in favour (no doubt because Québec is overwhelmingly in favour of this concept). Did they "defy Harper's wishes" in doing so? I don't know. I do know that getting rid of the registry is in Harper's sights. I would love to see some Québec Cons break ranks. But I maintain that progressive people should focus first on getting their own house in order.

ottawaobserver

I know that some Conservative backbenchers voted for the NDP's bill on Nortel pensioners, for example.

Anyways, it is not a reliable barometer to rely on the mainstream media's reports of voting behaviour.  Always go to the original sources, like Hansard or ParlInfo, or services that quantify the original sources like HowdTheyVote.ca or OpenParliament.ca.  The media miss a lot of important details in their rush to cover (for e.g., today) the dancing efforts of Harper and Ignatieff.

Caissa

The federal Opposition Liberals are demanding the Conservative government release an RCMP evaluation report of Canada's long-gun registry that concludes the program is cost effective, efficient and an important tool for law enforcement.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/26/rcmp-gun-registry-report-liberals.html#ixzz0xjhFg2dQ

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

remind wrote:
Seems like a double standard to me. At best.

If their constituents have previously agreed to register everything else in their lives such as births, deaths, marriages, cars, snow mobiles, tractors, pets, themselves, etc, yet object to registering their firearms as a result of mainstream propaganda drifting up from the south ...

The car registry thing is typically used by people who are on the side of gun control but it is never adhered to. The provincial motor vehicle acts are regulatory statutes. You break the law when avoiding to register and license,  but you won't be charged with a criminal offense. OTOH, the gun registry makes first time offenders subject to criminal charges as opposed to civil matters subject to lesser charges and penalties. Meanwhile, you can still go out and murder someone with your vehicle and sometimes even get away with it depending on your political connections in this Northern Puerto Rico. The Liberals were grand standing when they created the gun registry. They don't give a shit about protecting women and children from poverty and violence really.

 

Voodoorhythm

Unionist wrote:

Well, I started with Bill C-474, and this is what the CCPA website said:

Quote:
  “This is the first time a bill to change the rules on GMOs [genetically-modified organisms] has passed second reading,” says Sharratt. It’s an historical victory in itself that came about because the NDP, the Bloc Québecois, and most of the Liberal MPs voted in favour of the Bill, while the Conservatives voted against it. The vote was close (153 to 134) and, says Sharratt, Liberal leader “Michael Ignatieff left just before the vote and didn’t take a stand on the issue.”

Am I supposed to check your whole list for accuracy? I'm sorry, but I've never heard of a Conservative MP defying Harper's express wishes in a vote. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I did ask for an example, didn't I?

ETA: On further checking, there are definitely Private Members' Bills in Voodoorhythm's list where Conservatives voted differently from others - e.g., the Bloc member's "Right to Die with Dignity" bill, where Lawrence Cannon and Josée Verner voted in favour (no doubt because Québec is overwhelmingly in favour of this concept). Did they "defy Harper's wishes" in doing so? I don't know. I do know that getting rid of the registry is in Harper's sights. I would love to see some Québec Cons break ranks. But I maintain that progressive people should focus first on getting their own house in order.

 

I just picked bills that had conservatives voting against what seemed to be the party line.  Whether that means they expressly defied Harper's wishes or not, I can't say.  I can say they broke ranks with the rest of the party.  Granted, if he takes a stand and there are dissenting conservatives, they seem to keep quiet about it.  Also, I had Cannan and Lunney listed as yeas on 474.

 

 

Stockholm

People forget that back in 1995 when the gun registry was first passed by parliament, there was one Reform MP who broke ranks and voted IN AFAVOUR or the gun registry. It was none other than Stephen Harper the MP for Calgary West! That was back in the days when the Reform Party was big on the idea of MPs voting according to the wishes of their constituents - and Harper apparently felt that his constituents in Calgary were in favour of the registry.

Unionist

Voodoorhythm wrote:

I just picked bills that had conservatives voting against what seemed to be the party line.  Whether that means they expressly defied Harper's wishes or not, I can't say.  I can say they broke ranks with the rest of the party.  Granted, if he takes a stand and there are dissenting conservatives, they seem to keep quiet about it. 

I overstated my case. I still don't believe any Conservative MP will defy Harper's express stand, but they do run free votes on private member's bills (some anyway).

Quote:
Also, I had Cannan and Lunney listed as yeas on 474.

You are correct - and I was wrong to take the CCPA article at face value.

Fidel

It's too bad that not enough of the bastards in either old line party thought to break ranks and vote against Harper's anti-people, anti-society federal budgets. Sheeple are too easily led down well trodden paths into the valley of steel.

Voodoorhythm

Fidel wrote:

The car registry thing is typically used by people who are on the side of gun control but it is never adhered to. The provincial motor vehicle acts are regulatory statutes. You break the law when avoiding to register and license,  but you won't be charged with a criminal offense. OTOH, the gun registry makes first time offenders subject to criminal charges as opposed to civil matters subject to lesser charges and penalties. Meanwhile, you can still go out and murder someone with your vehicle and sometimes even get away with it depending on your political connections in this Northern Puerto Rico. The Liberals were grand standing when they created the gun registry. They don't give a shit about protecting women and children from poverty and violence really.

 

Not only that, but so long as my car is not used on public roads, it's not required to be registered.

Aristotleded24

ottawaobserver wrote:
Ratchetting up the pressure on them ... particularly now that the Cdn Police Association is preparing to launch a campaign on the issue ... will definitely have an impact, even if we don't hear about it -- and also increase the likelihood that we will.

The Canadian Poilce Association also favours tasers, a stepped-up war on drugs, and harsher criminal penalties. Why do progressives in favour of the gun registry cite this lobby group as an authority while arguing the other side in terms of all the issues I mentioned? And why is Shelly Glover's experience as a front-line officer herself dismissed out-of-hand? The police are always going to go into a situation assuming the worst (we've seen what they're capable of doing) a registry isn't going to make a difference.

Fidel

And there are cops who will tell us that a lot more is needed than just a gun registry. Poverty and violence are related issues. It seems to me that they are putting the cart before the horse as usual. They like their computers and high tech if it means increasing their control over the public. But computers and high tech should not be used to make it harder for rich people to export truck loads of untaxed corporate profits out of the country to financial brothels in far away places. I'd like to tell them where they can put their high tech policing equipment, and they wouldn't appreciate it very much at all.

Unionist

Frankly, I'd trust any report that concludes that more restrictions on firearms are better than less.

That's the flip side of your ad hominem argument. Sound good?

Why not let's read the report and make up our own minds, irrespective of who wrote it?

If Mr. Harper, the champion of freedom, ever lets it get published, that is.

 

Pages

Topic locked