Comments on: Gun registry religion

By: J.

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:57:43 +0000

1- If I punch you, or you’re loved on – You’ll punch me back, and you are legally allowed to use the same level of force to protect yourself.

2- If I increase the threat and attack you or your loved one with a knife – You’ll grab a knife and fight back, and you are legally allowed to use the same level of force to protect yourself.

3- If I further increase the threat to your life or your loved ones, and attack you with a gun – suddenly you claim its illegal for me to use the same amount of force to defend my life or my loved ones life?

My are the lives of civil servants (police) more valuable than your, whereby they are allowed to carry weapons to preserve their lives from criminal assault, but you can’t?

The problem with liberals is that common sense is beyond their grasp, as they are more focused on their Utopian agenda’s, rather than real life.

]]>

By: zeister

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:01:26 +0000

Yes, there is emotion on both sides of the firearms issue. The difference being the anti-gun folks have nothing to lose while the gun owners have everything to lose including their culture. The Auditor General summed up the lack of worth of the gun registry nicely. Activity has nothing to do with effectiveness.

The Liberals have also stated on more than one occassion that they intend to ban ALL semi-automatic firearms (that would include pump actions as is the case in other jurisdictions) as well as handguns.

Firearms registration makes confiscation possible and that is the history in other countries. So you can see the real agenda of registration is stepped eradication of private firearms ownership. Just look at the effect of the Firearms Act to date for confirmation of this statement. Otherwise why support a multi-billion dollar program that has failed in all its stated purposes?

Yes, a vote for the CPC is the only choice left to gun owners.

]]>

By: Ian

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:34:50 +0000

Fair enough. But there is no NDP policy on the registry, so he may have a personal opinion but there’s no “party loyalty” to it. The NDP voted AGAINST the registry when it was first proposed (save for Svend Robinson), and didn’t whip this last vote because there’s no official stance on it.

]]>

By: pro c391

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:18:49 +0000

Been there, done that, she is a personal supporter of it, and brings up the usual arguments for it based on emotion. I have spoken to her in person, although not recently.

Even if she favoured elimination of it, there is still party loyalty, and Jack has a hard on for keeping the registry and a handgun ban(even sillier than the registry)

]]>

By: Ian

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:30:11 +0000

Have you considered rallying your friends to make requests to her: The NDP has no official position on the registry (media and popular opinion are not truth in this case), and as a party (minus one MP) voted against the implementation in 1995. It’s worth at least asking Ms. Duncan if she would consider voting against the registry on the final vote if it is a major concern for you (and you would otherwise support the NDP). Talking to your MPs can never hurt.

]]>

By: pro c391

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:18:32 +0000

I never said it (poll of front line officers) was not useless. The police would advocate for warrant-less searches if they thought they could get away with it. It is simply included for contrast with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who consider it valuable. I did not make this, clear, my mistake.

There are far more long gun owners than handgun owners; as that is my riding, and having many hunting friends in that riding as well, I know none of them will vote for Linda Duncan now, despite voting for them before.

Mind you, Linda Duncan was the only NDP elected in the province, when the NDP announced support for a handgun ban. This can be looked at from both sides.
Either way, in a heavy university riding, demographics regularly change. I doubt after her poor show on this issue she will be relected.

]]>

By: Ian

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:57:32 +0000

A poll of front-line officers is as useless of an argument for/against the argument as a poll of usages. I only take issue with the plethora of crap arguments. Linda Duncan won with Jack Layton announcing in Edmonton that the NDP supported an all-out hand-gun ban. I said I was ambivalent about it at the start, and I still am mostly.

]]>

By: pro391

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:48:09 +0000

Ian, you know the Edmonton strathcona NDP MP Linda Duncan. Would you have some words with her regarding the registry? She failed to vote for its abolition at second reading. She voted to keep it. If she wants to keep her riding, where she only won by a few hundred votes, it would be best not to alienate the 100s of gun owners in her riding. It would be sad to see her lose her seat. She has a chance to make things right at 3rd reading after the bill has been in committee.

]]>

By: pro c391

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:53:25 +0000

Hi Paul. Yes, you are correct. That is why many of the prohib categories, such as full auto, shortbarreled handguns are only banned for anyone who did not own one prior to C17 in 1991; the gov did not want to deal with constitutional lawsuits resultant from property being confiscated. Instead the ‘banners’ just wait till those who are grandfathered to die, and then take their guns, The SPAS12 was a different story, as there was only a handful registered at the time, and the gov was prepared to and did deal with the resultant lawsuits. Usually under politically appointed judges with a hard on for civilian disarmament.

Matt: Sorry, but you are peddling the misinformation here(Or rather the RCMP, but you drank their Kool-aid). CFRO is not the long gun registry, nor is it simply queried when an officer has a gun related issue.

Traffic stop: when they enter your name in their system(CPIC), the CFRO is queried, and it automatically tells the officer if you have a firearm license. So that number of uses they cite includes anyone in the country, whether they own a firearm or not, that gets pulled over. Either way it counts as a CFRO query.

If they police come to your house for any reason, your name is ran through CIIDS (computer integrated dispatch system), which again automatically connects to CFRO.

So whenever the police investigate anything at any residence, or pull over anyone, that counts towards the CFRO uses. Way to go. That info about who has a firearms license will still be available after the registry is dead anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6Ii6qmEyM

A recent poll of front line police officers gave 2089 for scrapping the registry and 189 for keeping it. (Done by detective Randy Kuntz of the Edmonton Police Service)

]]>

By: Ian

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:37:06 +0000

It’s funny that you cite those studies, because they don’t really prove much.

First, the police would likely use and find it useful to have phone wire-taps of every household in Canada, or to have video surveillance of every home, business and public space. That doesn’t mean we should have these things unnecessarily.

Second, the question has to be not a survey of opinions – since I can poll everyone in Mexico on how long the 12th King of France’s nose was but that doesn’t make it true – but an actual look at whether the gun registry has had a significant effect (i.e. greater than the background effect) on crime and prosecutions over the time since it was implemented.

Finally, Communism and the Free Market were ideas that worked in principle, but we have seen so far that people are too easily corruptible for most idealisms.

But I will agree that the Conservatives likely moved to kill the registry out of ideology rather than facts (but that doesn’t automatically mean that support of the registry isn’t based on ideology either – and hence the point of my article).

]]>