09.15.2010 08:39 AM

Ready, shoot, aim

Oh, really?  The Reformatories are “delighted” they are about to lose a huge vote?

With the greatest of respect, I say bullshit.

They’ve been labouring away at denuding the gun registry for years.  This is a major, major setback for them.

It also shows how the Liberals and NDP, working together, can help to make Canada a better place, by the by.

15 Comments

  1. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    A win is a win and you take it — but it will still be only minor potatoes. Let’s keep our eye on the prize and get it going to sink Harper. After all, that’s the only thing that really counts, isn’t it?

    • Namesake says:

      um, no: the overall health, welfare, safety, and prosperity of Canadians is the goal of right- (which is to say, decent) thinking progressive people — not which MPs get to serve and how many of each type.

  2. Trent says:

    And of course, the Bloc , (with their vote, too) had NOTHING to do with “working together”?

    Come on now.

  3. PolyGon says:

    Exact. Some worry that the CPC will enjoy being able to continue moaning about guns and freedom long into the future should the registry survive. But who cares if they do? “Gun freedom” rhetoric isn’t going to win Harper any new votes anywhere he hasn’t got them.

  4. Anonymously Posted says:

    If killing the gun registry is so important to his members, then Generalissimo Harper should make it a confidence matter, no?

    Unless, he is chicken. Cluck! Cluck, cluck!

  5. Marc L says:

    This whole thing is a crock of BS.

    First, I fail to see what the problem is with registering guns — I don’t understand what it changes for law-abiding gun owners to have to register their arms. Frankly, if I had guns, I wouldn’t have a problem. Why the Harper crowd are against it in principle is a mystery to me. However…

    I also fail to see what purpose the registry serves. Not one person has succeeded in convincing me that it’s worth the cost. In fact, not one person has managed to explain to me exactly how it helps save lives and/or solve crimes. If you can’t justify that, it should be terminated. And, please, don’t argue that the fact that the police want it justifies the cost. I’m sure they would be in favour of a multi-billion dollar fingerprint registry. Or putting an officer permanently on every street corner, which would be nice, but would also cost a fortune.

    This has become a load of BS that serves little more than to further petty little political partisan battles.

  6. Kevin says:

    Bullshit to your bullshit. The only thing better for the Tories than winning this vote, is loosing it. Their fundraising machine gets ramped back up, and hundreds of thousands more flow in to their coffers on top of the millions they have already raised by pushing this hot button.

    In the mean time, what exactly have Mark Holland or Marlene Jennings done to capitalize on support for the registry?

    When was the last time Wendy Cukier and company countered the Tories’ fundraising machine by donating to pro-gun-control parties, candidates or riding associations?

    • Namesake says:

      back at ‘ya. Tom Flanagan spoke to this on P&P the other day, and said that sure, while they do gear some of their fundraising to this, it’s not much of a draw for them, at all: he estimated that when he was overseeing their fundraising, only 1% of their donations come because of this issue. He said that altho’ the gun folks may feel strongly about it, alright, they’re basically cheap. Course, he might be lying, but I dunno, he seems be to shooting straight from the hip these days, and until Kevin can prove otherwise, I think this is more of an urban myth than anything that somehow it’s a huge cash cow for them. (tho’ it may well influence votes, that’s another matter).

      • Kevin says:

        He’s not telling the truth.

        Go to Elections Canada’s financial information page. You’ll find a whole lot of strange riding-to-riding transfers of funds. Nothing untoward in that. But notice where the donor ridings are, and where the recipients are.

        • Namesake says:

          You might be right, of course, and I’m certainly no fan of the Cons or Flanagan,

          but, no, I’m not going to flail around in there trying to find out what you’re referring to: I’ve never mucked around that site, before.

          Why not tell, and link to it, if you’ve got some smoking guns? Lots of us here would like to catch them in lies and in & out transfers, too (a matter that’s still pending in legal limbo).

          Granted, I’m totally innocent / ignorant of all that Party fundraising machinations stuff, but I fail to see how that would be a relevant area of inquiry you’ve ID’d:

          Don’t these issues-based fundraising letters (& or calls & emails) you’re talking about all emanate from Party HQ, and the money goes directly to them for their big media/dirty tricks fund? (or, Hell, acc. to a couple of columnists, lately the Cons. telemarketers have actually been identifying themselves as calling from the PMO*)

          If so, the inter-riding transfers are an entirely diff. matter, no?

          http://www.edmontonjournal.com/That+telemarketing+part+budget/3526518/story.html

          http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/fundraising-08-16-2010

          • Kevin says:

            The annals of 1990s and 2000s by-elections are littered with tens of thousand of dollars in transfers from Reform/Alliance/CPC transfers from ridings associations in the west and rural Ontario, to places that aren’t in the west or rural Ontario.

            Raised, almost all of it, by pushing the “REMEMBER BILL C-68” button.

  7. H Holmes says:

    Things like the gun registry ensure a minority parliament for years to come.
    As rural voters and seats continue to go to Harper almost unopposed. It looks like there will possible be 3 or 4 more NDP seats that will swing Harper’s way too bad Layton couldn’t see this..
    Harper only needs to hang on for a couple more years and the new seats will ensure him of his majority.

    The best thing we could do is to have 20 seats not show up to vote.

    We need to get back to running hard all in areas of the country not running in 3 cities and then maybe we can form a majority.
    Poison pills like this only hurt us not them.

    Frankly the plan Ignatieff has bout the gun registry is still too strong. We should be running on a provincial opt out, that would satisfy most rural dominated areas.
    Lets get back to Asymetricallism on issues that involve other regions than just Quebec.

    In fact we should be allowing provincial opt out on almost all major national programs, for example Quebec will be able to opt out of any Daycare program that is proposed and still receive federal funding, but I doubt if Saskatchewan or Alberta will be. We need this changed.

  8. Paul says:

    The legitimate fear that gun owners have is that registration facilitates the eventual banning and confiscation of certain types of guns, and eventually ALL guns. In Canada and other countries this has already been proven out. First they just ban certain “scary” guns that “no-one really needs anyway” and the majority eats it up. At the same time, they clamp down harder on the ones that remain legal and implement a heavy burden of registration requirements, paperwork, red tape and fees with the threat of jail time for non-compliance which serve to discourage all but the most dedicated people from even bothering to get involved with hunting or the shooting sports. It’s a death of a thousand paper cuts.

    In Britain they have taken this to such a ridiculous extreme that not only are all classes of firearm pretty much banned, people can be criminally charged for having a little pocketknife, and “knife control” has replaced the cause of “gun control” (because after all, there are no more guns to control!) There are CCTV cameras everywhere (and yet they are making it illegal for citizens err… “subjects” to photograph or videotape the police.) See where I’m going here?

    • Namesake says:

      “See where I’m going here?”: I dunno, to Dumbasscus?

      Yes, maybe some types of guns have been retroactively banned & seized once it was found they could be retroactively modified to semi- or fully-automatic weapons. And I guess maybe the owners who _didn’t_ modify theirs & got theirs seized should be compensated.

      But those are the ‘latest thing’ weapons that the wanna be mercernaries are getting that we _are_ worried about going nutters. Ma & Pa duck hunter just have old 22’s or shotguns or whatever that aren’t ever going to be seized, unless they develop mental health / danger to self or others issues: the Libs are willing to put that in writing. It’s just USA-fueled NRA militia-man style paranoia to think otherwise. We shouldn’t make policy on the basis of paranoid ravings & slippery slope arguments.

Leave a Reply to PolyGon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*