The firearm registry saga - II

126 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-09-02 22:55

No Yards

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Your strategy is totally flawed.

The Conservatives have zero interest in fixing the registry.

Your strategy is a big FU to rural Canada becuase you would be saying we don't give a crap about your concerns- only the concerns of urban Canadians matter. Layton is the only one showing any leadership by saying that he believes that on balance the registry is worth the problems, but is secure enough in his leadership to say I understand your concerns and will let you express them and at the same time offering up a way to build bridges between people of good intent. Despite what you continue to say- Layton is the only leader worthy of the name.

Do you really think there is no price to pay for your absolutist postion? The Liberals are about to find out.

My absolute position? Your position ("status quo" let the registry die) is just as absolute, and it's a big FU to urban Canadians and abused women if we're using those kinds of "standards".

Look, there are two sides to this debate, and the best solution is to try and address the concerns of both sides ... where does the "strategy" of "we're not going to do anything and let the registry fall" even begin to start to address both sides concerns?

The Cons have "zero" interest in fixing the registry because there is no down side for not having an interest, and it seems as though you have no interest in even trying to force them to have an interest ... they can kill the registry and let the NDP take the fall for it using your so called "strategy", and the NDP are willingly helping them achieve that "strategy".

Do you really believe that if the NDP side with the cons and kill the registry that the NDP will not suffer from that decision?

You seem to believe there are only two ways go about this 1) allow the 12 NDP MPs to kill the registry and give a big FU to urban and feminist voters. 2) Whip the vote and give a bug FU to rural voters ... I'm saying there is another option, 3) Whip the vote but offer to whip the other way if the cons seriously address the valid concerns of all parties ... put the court back in the Cons court ... it may still end up that the NDP have to save the bill, or even maybe allow the 12 MPs to kill the registry, but now it's on the Cons for not wanting to address the real issues of all parties.

Thu, 2010-09-02 22:58

#103

writer

Okay. I see that bickering trumps. Good night.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:05

#104

No Yards

Stockholm wrote:

No Yards wrote:

But if you really insist, then isn't demeaning these people and their strong opinions as "downtown Toronto luminaries" also just as much, maybe even more, of a backhanded "either you support the invasion or you must be a supporter of terrorism" "ipso-facto"?

I was referring specifically to columns by Heather Mallick and in NOW magazine - Mallick lives in downtown Toronto and by virtue of writing columns in the Star would be flattered to be called a "luminary" and NOW is the quintessential downtown Toronto alternative newspaper. I'm not being derisive - I'm just stating a fact.

Yeah, right ... then why even mention ""downtown Toronto luminaries" at all? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Then Mallick is just "stating fact" as well when she presents the death of the registry as resulting in the death of abused women.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:07

#105

Stockholm

One point that should be made is that in many ways this vote is a moot point. The reality is that regardless of what happens in the vote on Sept. 22 for all intents and purposes the long gun registry is already dead. The Tories stopped enforcing it the moment they got into power and all gun registry promptly ground to a halt and they stopped enforcing it. The registry as it currently stands is so out of date as to exist in name only. The vote on the PMB is purely symbolic. Whatever happens the future of the gun registry really depends entirely on who forms a government after the next election. If the PMB fails but the Tories stay in power the registry will continue to exist in name only but essentially be nothing but a museum piece with 10 year old data. If the PMB passes, but the opposition takes power after the next election - you can be sure that the Liberals and NDP would quickly agree to bring in some new legislation along the lines of the compromise policies that both parties have announced.

It really doesn't matter whihc way the vote on Sept. 22 goes - the fate of the gun registry depends on who forms the next government.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:08

#106

Aristotleded24

No Yards wrote:
Do you really believe that if the NDP side with the cons and kill the registry that the NDP will not suffer from that decision?

Certainly I believe that. The only seats I could see that being a problem are Toronto-Danforth, Trinity-Spadina, and Outrement. And here in Winnipeg, even if the NDP loses votes to the Liberals on this issue, 2 of the seats are safe enough they don't have to worry and they might win over swing NDP-Conservative votes in the other. Not to mention that it's one less thing the Conservatives can campaign against the NDP in rural Saskatchewan, with possibilities of picking up seats in other rural areas as well.

So no, I don't think the NDP will suffer on balance.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:11

#107

Stockholm

"Then Mallick is just "stating fact" as well when she presents the death of the registry as resulting in the death of abused women."

Her column was full of total distortions. I thin she honestly thinks that ending gun REGISTRATION means that people will no longer need a license to have any firearms etc... I'm not sure why she would specifically mention women either - according to every statistic I've seen, men are about ten times more likely to be shot than women are.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:14

#108

No Yards

Aristotleded24 wrote:

No Yards wrote:
So, in the case of the omnibus bill Jack whipped a split caucus and there was 1 holdout that didn't obey the whip ... in this case there number of holdouts might be more or less, but the same situation applies, Jack acted like an "absolute dictator" then, but now that suddenly becomes unacceptable?

The caucus could not have been that badly split if Layton was able to whip the vote. Perhaps if other caucus members had gritted their teeth and said, "no Jack, we won't go along with it," then the vote would not have been whipped.

If the caucus was not split badly then there would have been no need to whip the vote.

Cons need 10 votes. Layton makes his deal and the Caucus is not badly split (ie: the vast majority of NDP MPs are happy to vote with Layton's deal ... meaning at least 19, probably more of the NDPs 36 votes go to the sealing the deal ... the Cons need 10 NDP votes ... Jack whips the vote because???)

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:15

#109

Stockholm

"The only seats I could see that being a problem are Toronto-Danforth, Trinity-Spadina, and Outrement."

...and need I remind you that the MPs for those three ridings you mention will vote to keep the gun registry in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. From some of the over the top rhetoric out there - you would think that Olivia Chow, Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair were a bunch of gun nuts who want open season on rifles! Instead its guilt by association - its not enough that these people support the gun registry (according to the Liberals) - they have to be tarred and feathered because they are in the same party as some other people who have a different point of view.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:22

#110

No Yards

Stockholm wrote:

One point that should be made is that in many ways this vote is a moot point. The reality is that regardless of what happens in the vote on Sept. 22 for all intents and purposes the long gun registry is already dead. The Tories stopped enforcing it the moment they got into power and all gun registry promptly ground to a halt and they stopped enforcing it. The registry as it currently stands is so out of date as to exist in name only. The vote on the PMB is purely symbolic. Whatever happens the future of the gun registry really depends entirely on who forms a government after the next election. If the PMB fails but the Tories stay in power the registry will continue to exist in name only but essentially be nothing but a museum piece with 10 year old data. If the PMB passes, but the opposition takes power after the next election - you can be sure that the Liberals and NDP would quickly agree to bring in some new legislation along the lines of the compromise policies that both parties have announced.

It really doesn't matter whihc way the vote on Sept. 22 goes - the fate of the gun registry depends on who forms the next government.

Tell that to the 12 NDP MPs that want to kill the registry that doesn't really exist. Tell that to Layton who says the registry saves lives and should be saved, except he's not going to do anything to save it.

If you're saying this is all a game of optics, then again you better talk to Layton because he's under the delusion that he's not playing the "same old politics" ... he claims to be serious.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:35

#111

Bookish Agrarian

No Yards wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Do you really think there is no price to pay for your absolutist postion? The Liberals are about to find out.

My absolute position? Your position ("status quo" let the registry die) is just as absolute, and it's a big FU to urban Canadians and abused women if we're using those kinds of "standards".

Look, there are two sides to this debate, and the best solution is to try and address the concerns of both sides ... where does the "strategy" of "we're not going to do anything and let the registry fall" even begin to start to address both sides concerns?

The Cons have "zero" interest in fixing the registry because there is no down side for not having an interest, and it seems as though you have no interest in even trying to force them to have an interest ... they can kill the registry and let the NDP take the fall for it using your so called "strategy", and the NDP are willingly helping them achieve that "strategy".

Do you really believe that if the NDP side with the cons and kill the registry that the NDP will not suffer from that decision?

You seem to believe there are only two ways go about this 1) allow the 12 NDP MPs to kill the registry and give a big FU to urban and feminist voters. 2) Whip the vote and give a bug FU to rural voters ... I'm saying there is another option, 3) Whip the vote but offer to whip the other way if the cons seriously address the valid concerns of all parties ... put the court back in the Cons court ... it may still end up that the NDP have to save the bill, or even maybe allow the 12 MPs to kill the registry, but now it's on the Cons for not wanting to address the real issues of all parties.

I used the word absolutist. It is a philosphy term. Look it up.

Your entire post is a mischaracterization of everything I have posted on this issue- which seems to be your typical posting style. I recognize the strategic blunder the Liberals are making for some short term gain, and like writer I am only interested in having a dialogue with people who actually care about moving these issues forward and doing it in a respectful way of everyones concerns. I also know how the registry actually works, what it does and doesn't do, how it was set up and the rhetoric that was used when it was, along with how the PAL system works, and the large amount of gun control that will still be in place if the registry is scrapped. I also understand that the underlying problems include male violence and a glorification of killing in our society and get that the registry does not and never will address that. That does not make me status quo or against gun control- far, far from it.

You have shown you are incapable of a respectful discussion. Hope you enjoy your pissing match.

Thu, 2010-09-02 23:53

#112

No Yards

Stockholm wrote:

"The only seats I could see that being a problem are Toronto-Danforth, Trinity-Spadina, and Outrement."

...and need I remind you that the MPs for those three ridings you mention will vote to keep the gun registry in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. From some of the over the top rhetoric out there - you would think that Olivia Chow, Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair were a bunch of gun nuts who want open season on rifles! Instead its guilt by association - its not enough that these people support the gun registry (according to the Liberals) - they have to be tarred and feathered because they are in the same party as some other people who have a different point of view.

What you call "over the top rhetoric out there" is the same "over the top rhetoric out there" that real issues are made of.

You may want to believe that everyone will ignore the whole debate when the house sits again and this issues is on the front burner, but as is usually the case with issues such as this they become much larger not smaller in the publics' mind.

It's possible that the public will look at how Layton is handling this situation and be perfectly fine with it, or it may be the case that the media will play up the fact that the RCMP, police chiefs, women's organizations, victims groups, etc are pissed at the NDP, and the "general NDP public"might just take notice and start to ask some serious questions as to where the NDP is heading.

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:00

#113

Bookish Agrarian

Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

Like I said philosophy term- not a political term.

I simply pointed out that your so-called strategy was totally flawed. I did it in a respectful, if blunt way. I have many, many years of experience in rural politics and activism and I think I can safely say I have a handle on what is workable or not.

You then went on to basically invent my views even claiming I had a 'strategy' and attacked me by trying to subtly suggest that if you have concerns about the registry and its value you are in favour of, or at least don't care about violence against women. None of which I have said or is true.

Like I said enjoy your solo pissing match. Watch your shoes though.

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:09

#114

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

No Yards wrote:
Do you really believe that if the NDP side with the cons and kill the registry that the NDP will not suffer from that decision?

Certainly I believe that. The only seats I could see that being a problem are Toronto-Danforth, Trinity-Spadina, and Outrement. And here in Winnipeg, even if the NDP loses votes to the Liberals on this issue, 2 of the seats are safe enough they don't have to worry and they might win over swing NDP-Conservative votes in the other. Not to mention that it's one less thing the Conservatives can campaign against the NDP in rural Saskatchewan, with possibilities of picking up seats in other rural areas as well.

So no, I don't think the NDP will suffer on balance.

I don't think the gun registry will end up being the defining issue in the next election, no. The next election is largely likely to be about the economy as Chantal Hebert and others pointed out this week. However, there will be some NDP voters who switch to the Liberals.

As for T-D, T-S and Outremont, yes, those are 3 seats where the NDP can lose votes to the Liberals, although I think the NDP will keep T-D for the duration of Jack's time as leader. Even though the Liberals are still getting strong 2nd place numbers in T-D despite it being the NDP leader's seat, it will be difficult for them to get back to pre-2004 levels of support there until Jack leaves.

T-S may be winnable for the Liberals in the next election if they can improve their support in Ontario over what it was in 2008, and recent polls seem to suggest that is happening. Even though the Liberal vote plummeted in Ontario in 2008, Olivia Chow still only won T-S by about 5 points. If the Liberal vote rises next time, she may be vulnerable.

Outremont, although only 1 seat mathematically, means much more than just one seat to the NDP. At the moment it has greater symbolic and practical significance to the NDP than the Liberals. It is the only NDP seat in Quebec and the basis for Layton and Mulcair claiming that they can make further gains in Quebec. If they lose Outremont, the NDP's Quebec growth might be over. That would be a big blow.

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:10

#115

MUN Prof.

Stockholm wrote:

No Yards wrote:

But if you really insist, then isn't demeaning these people and their strong opinions as "downtown Toronto luminaries" also just as much, maybe even more, of a backhanded "either you support the invasion or you must be a supporter of terrorism" "ipso-facto"?

I was referring specifically to columns by Heather Mallick and in NOW magazine - Mallick lives in downtown Toronto and by virtue of writing columns in the Star would be flattered to be called a "luminary" and NOW is the quintessential downtown Toronto alternative newspaper. I'm not being derisive - I'm just stating a fact.

And Mallick hacks for the TO Star, which is nothing more than LPC birdcage liner.

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:12

#116

No Yards

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I used the word absolutist. It is a philosphy term. Look it up.

Your entire post is a mischaracterization of everything I have posted on this issue- which seems to be your typical posting style. I recognize the strategic blunder the Liberals are making for some short term gain, but like writer I am only interested in having a dialogue with people who actually care about moving these issues forward and doing it in a respectful way of everyones concerns. You have shown you are incapable of that. Hope you enjoy your pissing match.

Yes, I misread the word, but you're still wrong .. in order for me to be an "absolutist" I would have to believe that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority ... there is a big fucking difference between believing that it should be vested in one authority, and recognizing that in this specific situation the power has been vested in one authority, and that's the reality we have to deal with.

Seems the sin of mischaracterization comes easy to you as well. Also, if you bothered to read my posts you might see that I am offering an alternative possibility that doesn't involve just giving the Cons their victory and letting the NDP take the fall.

ETA: I'm also aware of how the registry works, and the difference between the registry and licensing ... tell me how a PAL addresses a licensed person from buying firearms for people who shouldn't have a firearm? The registry at least puts in place the paper trail that points back to anyone that might not take their firearm responsibilities seriously. A PAL doesn't care if you bought 100 rifles and give 99 of them to a biker gang, nor does it help trace back the source of those firearms once they been found and recognized as being a weapon used in a crime.

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:14

#117

Bookish Agrarian

"However, there will be some NDP voters who switch to the Liberals"

And at least as many going the other way and likely more than a few that will jump to the Conservatives.

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:34

#118

No Yards

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

Like I said philosophy term- not a political term.

I simply pointed out that your so-called strategy was totally flawed. I did it in a respectful, if blunt way. I have many, many years of experience in rural politics and activism and I think I can safely say I have a handle on what is workable or not.

You then went on to basically invent my views even claiming I had a 'strategy' and attacked me by trying to subtly suggest that if you have concerns about the registry and its value you are in favour of, or at least don't care about violence against women. None of which I have said or is true.

Like I said enjoy your solo pissing match. Watch your shoes though.

Then I was right the first time .. my views are no more "Moral absolutism" than yours.

I responded to you in the same "respectful but blunt" manner as you claim to have used ... you can dish it out, but sure have a problem taking it.

I "invented" nothing .. you presented what Layton is currently doing as the proper way to go, and what the hell is so "un-absolutism" about the following statements:

Your strategy is a big FU to rural Canada
Layton is the only one showing any leadership
Layton is the only leader worthy of the name.

Oh, and your "appeal to authority" argument is interesting ... you'll have to fill in the details of all your unerring successes though to take that argument out of the realm of "fallicy" ... but you knew that, since you are so up on all those fancy philosophical terms.

BTW, nice job holding your "piss".

Fri, 2010-09-03 00:38

#119

No Yards

MUN Prof. wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

No Yards wrote:

But if you really insist, then isn't demeaning these people and their strong opinions as "downtown Toronto luminaries" also just as much, maybe even more, of a backhanded "either you support the invasion or you must be a supporter of terrorism" "ipso-facto"?

I was referring specifically to columns by Heather Mallick and in NOW magazine - Mallick lives in downtown Toronto and by virtue of writing columns in the Star would be flattered to be called a "luminary" and NOW is the quintessential downtown Toronto alternative newspaper. I'm not being derisive - I'm just stating a fact.

And Mallick hacks for the TO Star, which is nothing more than LPC birdcage liner.

She was also a highly respected contributor on rabble/babble for a while as well, but I guess since she has a mind of her own and doesn't bow down to her "betters" in the NDP she seems to have lost favour.

Fri, 2010-09-03 01:21

#120

MUN Prof.

double post

Fri, 2010-09-03 01:23

#121

MUN Prof.

No Yards wrote:

MUN Prof. wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

No Yards wrote:

But if you really insist, then isn't demeaning these people and their strong opinions as "downtown Toronto luminaries" also just as much, maybe even more, of a backhanded "either you support the invasion or you must be a supporter of terrorism" "ipso-facto"?

I was referring specifically to columns by Heather Mallick and in NOW magazine - Mallick lives in downtown Toronto and by virtue of writing columns in the Star would be flattered to be called a "luminary" and NOW is the quintessential downtown Toronto alternative newspaper. I'm not being derisive - I'm just stating a fact.

And Mallick hacks for the TO Star, which is nothing more than LPC birdcage liner.

She was also a highly respected contributor on rabble/babble for a while as well, but I guess since she has a mind of her own and doesn't bow down to her "betters" in the NDP she seems to have lost favour.

Now, now, let's not forget the part about the TO Star, LPC birdcage liner, mouthpiece, sick in mouth, etc. . . .

Worry not too many Yards, sometime between now and mid-Sept we can expect that Rebick, Laxer, or another "highly respected [rabble] contributor" will emerge on this page or another to take a break from sunning themselves in the Muskoka's to take aim at Layton. Just the left-wing splinterism the Outremont LPC adores.

Fri, 2010-09-03 01:26

#122

Bookish Agrarian

No Yards wrote:

[ETA: I'm also aware of how the registry works, and the difference between the registry and licensing ... tell me how a PAL addresses a licensed person from buying firearms for people who shouldn't have a firearm? The registry at least puts in place the paper trail that points back to anyone that might not take their firearm responsibilities seriously. A PAL doesn't care if you bought 100 rifles and give 99 of them to a biker gang, nor does it help trace back the source of those firearms once they been found and recognized as being a weapon used in a crime.

I am going to ignore your last two juvenile posts. Instead I will address this addition to an earlier post in the chance others might be interested.

Your contention of how the registry and the PAL system work is factually incorrect.

A PAL application or a renewal, actually requires a substantive police background check. Currently the waiting list is about 6 months last I heard, so nothing can be issued during that period. The PAL will not stop you from giving those weapons to a biker gang, but absolutely neither would the registery do anything to stop you from giving guns to a biker gang either. It might trigger a red flag in such an outlandish scenario but of course such an obvious action would never happen in real life.

The PAL system also requires you take and pass a saftey course- which I suspect has something to do with the reduction in rifle/shotgun related accidents, not the registery. You must have a PAL to purchase ammunition. Now it is possible the registery could theoretically catch someone stockpiling ammunition, but it is unlikely if someone is actively planning.

It is the PAL system that checks for past violent acts, court orders, mental illness and the like. None of that is done by the registry. The registry is only a database of who owns what firearm(both restriced and non-restriced ones). If a court order is issued against someone that removes their right to possess a firearm- this is done through the PAL system- not the registry, at least not directly. The courts have to assume in such a case that unregistered weapons are a potential and so a thorough check is performed. This can and often does include entering a home and searching physically whether there is a registered weapon or not. A registered weapon could be easily hidden by 'selling' a gun to a buddy so registering a firearm in these situations is no guarentee of any kind.

One shortcoming of the PAL are the signarture of spouses or conjugal partners and reference requirements. If someone is abusive, but does not have a 'history' women could be coerced or threatened into signing and no one would know. This is a hard one to get at, but there is nothing in the registery system that would catch that either. Which is one of my concerns about the registery because it gives a false sense of security to society that we are 'doing something." There is a phone number listed on the form, and someone might call, but I suspect chances are they would be too scared to do so- and one could hardly blame them.

In the end the real power and potential for meaningful gun control rests in the PAL system and by strengthening and reforming it. The registry does little but provide a wedge issue and to divide good people of good intentions on both sides of this issue. As I said before regardless of the outcome of the vote, nothing meaningful will be accomplished as the politicians in Ottawa will just go on their merry way using public saftey and rural/urban divides as nothing put political chess pieces to use or sacrifice in their larger game playing.

Fri, 2010-09-03 01:30

#123

ottawaobserver

I'm so grateful for the warm, patient and constructive interventions of a lot of the people in this thread. It makes me believe that some progress is being made in bridging the communications barrier, and moving the debate forward.

Fri, 2010-09-03 01:43

#124

Bookish Agrarian

Pages

Topic locked