Liberals want Handgun Ban
- Thread starter Michael Dorosh
- Start date
- Status
" Defending one's property sounds all noble and all, but killing someone who broke in to look for a few bucks is murder as far as the law is concerned."
- You don't kill someone in your house because they were looking for a few bucks. You kill them when they leave you no choice and you "fear for your life" or the lives of your family. That is the difference between self defence and murder.
As for the immediate effect of Mr. Martin's pledge, I was in P&D (Phil and Dianne) Enterprises today doing some ammo replenishment, and Dianne said it was a VERY busy day. Talking with another worker in the store, I heard that the consensus in Edmonton is that 'Grandfathering" of pistols may result, so everyone and their (duly-liscenced) dog showed up to buy a handgun ,or two, or three, before it is too late.
I don't imagine that was QUITE the plan Wendy Kukier had.
Tom
- You don't kill someone in your house because they were looking for a few bucks. You kill them when they leave you no choice and you "fear for your life" or the lives of your family. That is the difference between self defence and murder.
As for the immediate effect of Mr. Martin's pledge, I was in P&D (Phil and Dianne) Enterprises today doing some ammo replenishment, and Dianne said it was a VERY busy day. Talking with another worker in the store, I heard that the consensus in Edmonton is that 'Grandfathering" of pistols may result, so everyone and their (duly-liscenced) dog showed up to buy a handgun ,or two, or three, before it is too late.
I don't imagine that was QUITE the plan Wendy Kukier had.
Tom
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
Grits Misfire on Guns
We were wrong on the rifle registry and PM Martin's handgun ban is no better: It could hurt him
By Sheila Copps
OTTAWA -- The phone lines to the Prime Minister are burning up. The last thing rural MPs want to talk about during this election empaign is gun control. By throwing the handgun grenade into their midst, Martin may have just kissed rural Canada goodbye.
No doubt his handlers have done their math. There are more voters living in cities than in rural areas. By proposing to ban handguns, he hopes to solidify his support in the cities and further contrast his "progressive" values with those of the "right-wing, pro-gun Tories."
It is a risky move but one which Martin hopes will solidify his appeal to the Liberal/left/NDP/Buzz vote, especially in Ontario. It also repeats a history of Ottawa-made gun rules that underscore the growing divide between cities and the rest of the country.
Kim Campbell actually started gun control as we know it. As Brian Mulroney's justice minister, she introduced a firearms acquisition certificate for would-be gun purchasers, with provisions for training and medical evaluation.
Not to be outdone by a red Tory, the Liberals' Red Book in 1993 promised further changes to gun laws to promote "safe homes and safe streets." That promise paved the way for Grit justice minister Allan Rock to pass a new law requiring the registration of every single long firearm.
At the time, Rock said he would love to ban all handguns, but his natural caution and the caucus (of which I was then a member) convinced him to take a different path. His department studied the possibility of a total ban but recommended a limitation, instead, on all snub-nose guns with very short barrels, the so-called "Saturday night specials."
All hell broke loose. Turns out, the legislation would have banned some guns used in Olympic competition. When Susan Nattrass lobbied parliamentarians to legalize Olympic guns, she was joined by thousands of law-abiding citizens who shoot on a recreational basis.
Rural members were threatening to bolt our caucus. To smooth matters over, Rock asked a committee co-chaired by an urban member (the late Shaunessey Cohen) and a rural member (Kenora-Rainy River's Bob Nault) to come up with a compromise. A fractious consensus was reached which left no one happy but which permitted us to limp through the 1997 election with a reduced majority. One element of the compromise was a recommendation that the gun registry not be run by the department of justice. (Caucus predicted that an Ottawa-based agency would be the wrong place to speedily deliver a registration system that had to be seamless, if the government was ever going to win over the naysayers. We were right!)
The registry was a bureaucratic nightmare which was so over-budget and underperforming that it became a constant source of embarrassment. MPs and ministers who had guns (and there were many) complained they couldn't even get through on the toll-free line to register. Eventually the whole mess was turned over to the RCMP.
By reopening the issue, PM Paul Martin may end up hurting his cause.
Most Canadians, in principle, favour limitations on the use of guns. Most do not use them in their daily lives. But for those who do, legitimately, the gun registry exemplifies all that does not work in the ivory gun-free tower of the nation's capital.
It also serves to reinforce the impression that the current registry is not working. If it were so successful, why are unregistered arms of all types littering the streets of cities like Toronto? Confused Canadians want to know why Karla Homolka can walk free and law-abiding citizens are getting hit with even more bureaucracy.
This latest move has little to do with gun control results. It has a lot to do with widening the split between progressive Liberals and regressive Tories.
Unfortunately, the split goes beyond political parties. It serves to reinforce the view of rural Canadians that their voices, and their votes, don't really count.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2005/12/11/1347566.html
We were wrong on the rifle registry and PM Martin's handgun ban is no better: It could hurt him
By Sheila Copps
OTTAWA -- The phone lines to the Prime Minister are burning up. The last thing rural MPs want to talk about during this election empaign is gun control. By throwing the handgun grenade into their midst, Martin may have just kissed rural Canada goodbye.
No doubt his handlers have done their math. There are more voters living in cities than in rural areas. By proposing to ban handguns, he hopes to solidify his support in the cities and further contrast his "progressive" values with those of the "right-wing, pro-gun Tories."
It is a risky move but one which Martin hopes will solidify his appeal to the Liberal/left/NDP/Buzz vote, especially in Ontario. It also repeats a history of Ottawa-made gun rules that underscore the growing divide between cities and the rest of the country.
Kim Campbell actually started gun control as we know it. As Brian Mulroney's justice minister, she introduced a firearms acquisition certificate for would-be gun purchasers, with provisions for training and medical evaluation.
Not to be outdone by a red Tory, the Liberals' Red Book in 1993 promised further changes to gun laws to promote "safe homes and safe streets." That promise paved the way for Grit justice minister Allan Rock to pass a new law requiring the registration of every single long firearm.
At the time, Rock said he would love to ban all handguns, but his natural caution and the caucus (of which I was then a member) convinced him to take a different path. His department studied the possibility of a total ban but recommended a limitation, instead, on all snub-nose guns with very short barrels, the so-called "Saturday night specials."
All hell broke loose. Turns out, the legislation would have banned some guns used in Olympic competition. When Susan Nattrass lobbied parliamentarians to legalize Olympic guns, she was joined by thousands of law-abiding citizens who shoot on a recreational basis.
Rural members were threatening to bolt our caucus. To smooth matters over, Rock asked a committee co-chaired by an urban member (the late Shaunessey Cohen) and a rural member (Kenora-Rainy River's Bob Nault) to come up with a compromise. A fractious consensus was reached which left no one happy but which permitted us to limp through the 1997 election with a reduced majority. One element of the compromise was a recommendation that the gun registry not be run by the department of justice. (Caucus predicted that an Ottawa-based agency would be the wrong place to speedily deliver a registration system that had to be seamless, if the government was ever going to win over the naysayers. We were right!)
The registry was a bureaucratic nightmare which was so over-budget and underperforming that it became a constant source of embarrassment. MPs and ministers who had guns (and there were many) complained they couldn't even get through on the toll-free line to register. Eventually the whole mess was turned over to the RCMP.
By reopening the issue, PM Paul Martin may end up hurting his cause.
Most Canadians, in principle, favour limitations on the use of guns. Most do not use them in their daily lives. But for those who do, legitimately, the gun registry exemplifies all that does not work in the ivory gun-free tower of the nation's capital.
It also serves to reinforce the impression that the current registry is not working. If it were so successful, why are unregistered arms of all types littering the streets of cities like Toronto? Confused Canadians want to know why Karla Homolka can walk free and law-abiding citizens are getting hit with even more bureaucracy.
This latest move has little to do with gun control results. It has a lot to do with widening the split between progressive Liberals and regressive Tories.
Unfortunately, the split goes beyond political parties. It serves to reinforce the view of rural Canadians that their voices, and their votes, don't really count.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2005/12/11/1347566.html
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
Heinrich Himmler
(edit: At the request of a member, I have deleted a famous Allan Rock quote (you know the one, from "Taking Aim on Guns" Maclean's, April 25, 1994, page 12.) and added this one instead:
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz; March, 1933.
Tom
Heinrich Himmler
(edit: At the request of a member, I have deleted a famous Allan Rock quote (you know the one, from "Taking Aim on Guns" Maclean's, April 25, 1994, page 12.) and added this one instead:
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz; March, 1933.
Tom
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
Don't forget your sig line Tom:
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Sheila, you've come a long way, baby. Though I dispute the concept of progressive liberals and regressive conservatives.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
redleafjumper said:
You're thinking too literally. Regressive in this sense, I think, means a reversion to older ways - ie no registration for firearms, but tougher laws regarding firearm crime. Stuff like that. Progressive as in challenging the status quo, regressive as in going back to ways that perceivably worked.
"Hey Tom, he forgot the word 'criminals'
Cheers,
Wes"
- No, he didn't. Criminals MUST remain armed. The criminal is one of the pillars of the justice INDUSTRY. With police science and technology getting better and better, a concurrent loosening and watering down of the law is needed to keep the criminals on the street and the lawyers and judges in SUVs and hookers.
If you have a more logical explanation, I would be willing to hear it.
Tom
Cheers,
Wes"
- No, he didn't. Criminals MUST remain armed. The criminal is one of the pillars of the justice INDUSTRY. With police science and technology getting better and better, a concurrent loosening and watering down of the law is needed to keep the criminals on the street and the lawyers and judges in SUVs and hookers.
If you have a more logical explanation, I would be willing to hear it.
Tom
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
TCBF said:
I think the police benefit from that situation as well - lower crime = lower need for police = fewer police officers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Glorified Ape said:
Police forces don't exactly work the same as private industry. Officers don't get laid off during a slow year.
And this stupid stupid STUPID on Martin's part. It's a campaign "promise" that sounds appealing but will do diddly-squat to get guns off the streets.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
TCBF said:
Very similar to the industry we have in homeless people. We built a 7 story palace of a Drop In centre a few years ago downtown that is actually bigger than many of the hotels in that end of the core; the homeless business is booming. Last thing any of the people in the "industry" would want is to see homeless people get jobs and places to live...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Michael Dorosh said:
Ain't gonna happen because there will always be the homeless and needy. Same as criminals - it doesn't matter how advanced police technology becomes/how many cops you put on the street, there will always be more criminals.
Really, I think these theories are little tinfoil hat-ish.
D
dutchie
Guest
If it wasn't for criminals and their illegally obtained guns, they wouldn't need a gun registry, and wouldn't need to ban handguns. Funny how innefective every 'anti-gun crime' legislation is...coincidence? Here's my formula for a Liberal anti-gun, er, 'get tough on crime' law:
Window dressing legislation + sensationalized 'increase' in gun-related crime + slack sentences + cushy jails (sorry Bruce) = no change in violent criminal activity. Let sit for one term, repeat until law-abiding citizens are completely disarmed, and only police and criminals have guns.
Window dressing legislation + sensationalized 'increase' in gun-related crime + slack sentences + cushy jails (sorry Bruce) = no change in violent criminal activity. Let sit for one term, repeat until law-abiding citizens are completely disarmed, and only police and criminals have guns.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
midgetcop said:
I brought this up in another thread but it bears repeating here. There was an organization in the States a few years back that dedicated itself to making life easier for homeless people. Their bright idea on how to spend donations was to buy new shopping carts for homeless people to use.
Now, get this, they didn't invest in job training or helping homeless people develop skills, kick dependencies, or otherwise improve themselves. They chose to give them new shopping carts - ensuring that they stayed dependent on said organization, which could continue raking in donations and paying themselves decent salaries, all the while pretending they had done some good.
See how it works yet?
The Liberal party appears to operate in the same manner on some issues.
- Status
Similar threads
