NDP MPs disciplined for long-gun registry vote

108 posts / 0 new
Last post

See Peter3, we had a civilized exchange (you and I) early in the thread. I agreed with you and adopted your characterization about Jack's role in squaring the circle last time. Then, you simply [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-mps-disciplined-long-gun-r... out[/url], stopped entirely talking about the subject matter here, and got personal. You questioned my right to comment on how mavericks in the caucus should be treated. You talked about me, not the issue. I'm inviting you to return to your [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-mps-disciplined-long-gun-r... style of contribution[/url], which is valuable - as opposed to your current voluble and volatile one. You can call me "passive aggressive" if you like, but that doesn't justify aggression.



Unionist wrote:

you simply freaked out

This is an effort to return to a collegial mode of discourse?

Unionist wrote:
You questioned my right to comment on how mavericks in the caucus should be treated.

At no point. Don't put words in my mouth.

Unionist wrote:
You talked about me, not the issue.

Sorry, but that's a stretch. I commented on your arguments, characterizing one as circular and another as unlikely to be of great interest to those it was apparently directed to. You may not like that, but when you start using language like "feeble" and stereotypes like "gun-worshipping government-hating libertarians" you invite comment on your argumentation.

Unionist wrote:
I'm inviting you to return to your earlier style of contribution

Sure. I'll make the same invitation...

Unionist wrote:
as opposed to your current voluble and volatile one.

...but it's a little difficult to take the invitation seriously when it's followed so closely by more condescension.

Unionist wrote:
You can call me "passive aggressive" if you like, but that doesn't justify aggression.


But know that I am as proud of my heritage as any other person on this site, and I do not like one bit the suggestion that my community, friends and family are too stupid to think for themselves, too self-interested to embrace progressive views, too feeble to resist the manipulations of the NRA or too poorly informed to have an educated point of view. Whether you intended it or not, that's how your comments came across - and I am obviously not the only person here who read them that way.

The fact that a majority of any sort has a particular point of view does not end all discussion or mean that the majority is right. It it were so, women would not have the vote. I am a progressive Canadian. I proudly identify as socialist, left-wing, feminist male, gay positive, environmentalist, pro-choice, secularist, vegetarian and a credit union member. My guns - which have not been used in years and are stored in a disassembled state - are registered, and I don't have a real problem with the concept. I also believe that the registry could almost certainly never deliver the kind of freedom from gun violence it was sold as promising, contains hugely problematic erosions of civil liberties that set terrible precedents, was implemented in a manner that seemed calculated to offend and is overburdened with pop-psychological and generally fatuous drivel of no earthly use to anybody. I don't agree with them, but I have no trouble understanding why some people want to get rid of it completely. There is nothing in that position that is unprogressive in any way, shape or form.

If you want to talk about why, fine. Just leave the stereotypes out of it.

Bookish Agrarian

Wilf Day wrote:
Bookish Agrarian wrote:

the registry was not progressive, nor is gun control in general.

Now you've lost me. I can accept 99% of what you say, but not that "gun control in general is not progressive." While we're listing stereotypes of what people think gun control means, list this: my female "rural" clients with husbands who have no livestock to protect, but who have repressed their anger management problems until they have two or three drinks, think gun control means (should mean) he must lock up off-site or get rid of that old rifle unless he can prove to the local police (who know what he's like) that he needs it readily available.


It really isn't that complicated.  Gun control is just a thing.  I happen to think for the most part actual gun control is a good thing.  (Which despite the rhetoric the registry was never about general gun control).  However, both progressive and reactionary governments have enacted gun and weapons control throughout history and around the world.  Therefore by simple logic it is not inherently progressive.  What can be progressive is the motivation.  But in the actual implimentation gun control measures are not inherently progressive, or reactionary for that matter.  They are, as I said, just a thing.  The LRG was not terribly progressive by any measure as others have outlined.



Hey Aristotleded I tried replying to your message but kept getting an error message   THANKS.

Wilf Day

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Hey Aristotleded I tried replying to your message but kept getting an error message   THANKS.

That's a babble flaw. The PMs go through, but the site says they haven't.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

In North America, at least, the original promoters of gun control were the right - who wanted to prevent workers and minoroties from being armed.  The idea that gun control is inherently progressive is pure revisionism.

The registry is gone - or it will be shortly.  Instead of reflexively trying to resurrect an odious piece of Liberal wegde politics (and falling into every trapped laid by Conservative wedge politics), let's have a grown up conversation about what constitutes reasonable and enforcible regulation of firearms and actually enhances public safety.

(Quite apart from the draconian aspects of the registry legislation, no one has ever presented a credible case that regulating firearms enhances public safety any more than the status quo antem where we registered firearms owners.)

Hurtin Albertan

I can't believe I almost missed out on a gun control topic!  Silly me, I thought this one was about NDP internal politics.

Malcolm:  Excellent point!  I'm not sure which came first, Gun Control in Canada or the Winnipeg General Strike.  Quite certain the current restrictions on handguns were all set in place to keep the Wobblies from armed insurrection or some such.

It should also be said that to this date no one really knows what the registration rate even is.  Did 75% of the legally owned long guns get registered, or was it 50%, or less.  The way it is so incomplete and inaccurate is possibly the best reason for getting rid of it.  Anyways for the record I think it could have been 100% accurate had it been implemented in a different manner.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Another addition to babble's long-thread registry.


Topic locked