tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post6654636953311165327..comments2023-07-25T02:39:44.615-07:00Comments on Bill Tieleman: Long gun registry critics can't shoot straight - Tieleman fires back with both barrelsBill Tielemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03304971610140279157noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-19099041017371102212010-05-10T01:52:06.960-07:002010-05-10T01:52:06.960-07:00Why are gun control supporters the only people tha...Why are gun control supporters the only people that put up images of guns pointing at the reader?<br /><br />Obviously bereft of manners and common sense that all firearms owners know. Rule #1: always keep firearms pointed in a safe direction. If you do this, you will never injure anyone, ever.<br /><br />Stop pointing that thing at me!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-4001150698874566352010-03-23T09:11:10.727-07:002010-03-23T09:11:10.727-07:00Balance,facts and free speech are what our great s...Balance,facts and free speech are what our great society is based on and that is why Canada is such a great nation. So we need to choice where to impose society views and laws, but in the process be careful not to dislodge my rights or my guns. So now that I have your attention!<br /><br />I own firearms for hunting. I am a believer in firearm training and in a timed process when buying firearms. What I mean by this is that a person who might have a moment of rage can not simply go out and buy a gun, return home and shoot someone. It is impossible to control all things in life but there are always ways of improving what we do today. Long gun registry is not an improvement. Perhaps we need a system of mental health checks before a gun is bought, or a car for that matter, see below. But I am guessing that might be seen as an invasion of privacy.<br /><br />A few questions for you all. How many registered firearms have been used in committing a crime, note registered? Another question would be of all firearm crimes, what percentage of them were conducted by long gun's owned by the same person that bought the gun and or had it registered?<br /><br />The point is, criminals conduct the majority of firearm crimes. You and I don't as a normal course of action, but it is possible. So let us agree that tomorrow Bill and I flip out, I have registered guns, I take one and shot someone. Did the registry stop me? No. Now lets say the next day Bill flips out, gets in his car and drives into his ex wife and kills her? Where is the difference, you can't claim that a car is less of a danger than a gun can you since if you like facts and stats there are A LOT MORE PEOPLE killed each year with automobiles than guns in Canada. Automobiles are registered for tax purposes not for safety I would think, but perhaps we need to re-look at a complete over haul of car registration, as I can think of a lot of folks I don't think should be sitting behind the wheel.<br /><br />What we need is balance, we can't control all aspects of life, we can educate and inform however. I am against the registry as it is a huge cost and the ROI is just not there. Invest my tax dollars in re-training people how to drive every 5 years and I bet we save a lot more lives that this gun registry does. Just a thought.Steve Laycocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-32611376510624576082009-11-23T18:49:07.729-08:002009-11-23T18:49:07.729-08:00To anonymous @ 2:52; Marc Lepine purchased his fi...To anonymous @ 2:52; Marc Lepine purchased his firearm legally. With an FAC. <br /><br />Bill,<br />I still think you're out to lunch on this. Registering firearms hasn't stopped any crime. Criminals don't care about registering things. <br /><br />And to the person who thinks all guns should be banned I say, get real.<br /><br />I have a firearm not for self defense but for hunting and to protect my livestock. While you're eating Buffy on your plate, just remember where Buffy came from, and thank the rancher that protected Buffy till she ended up on your plate.<br /><br />City people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-52839095356725208202009-11-22T12:17:41.976-08:002009-11-22T12:17:41.976-08:00"Do you think that the course of history migh..."Do you think that the course of history might have been changed if the German people had the means to stand up to the Nazis?"<br /><br />No. It was said Hitler brought in gun control in 1939. That was 6 years after he had taken power. The communists, gypsies and Jews were already in the concentration camps, the Anchluss with Austria had already occurred as had the partition of Czechoslovakia and the occupation of the Rhineland and the massive rearnament.<br /><br />Perhaps the Germans would have had a better chance of stopping the Nazis if there had been gun control back when they started their street level intimidation tactics. At least then Roehm's brownshirts, later the SA, wouldn't have been armed.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Unfortunately we can only speculate, but it certainly did not help that the people of Germany were all effectively disarmed by gun control measures prior to the Nazis seizing complete control."<br /><br />By 1939 they already had complete control.<br /><br />"Regarding Switzerland. Prior to WW2 The Swiss people were largely agrarian. Bombing cities to starve them or defeat them with disease would have been ineffective. Think about it."<br /><br />I have. Switzerland is landlocked and after the fall of France was surrounded by enemies. The Germans could have bombed Bern, Basel, Geneva as well as all railroads and the Swiss would have been unable to feed their cities. They would have been reduced to the level of the Dark Ages and would have begged the Germans to accept their surrender.<br /><br /><br />"A largely rural population that prodces much of its own food, lives in rough, steep terrain and is well armed and trained. Not worth the cost to invade."<br /><br />That doesn't describe Switzerland which even then was known for its financial system. Individual Swiss farmers could have held out for awhile but so what, the cities would have fallen as fast as Rotterdam and Brussels.<br /><br /><br />"In Russia you just have your facts incorrect. The Great (Stalin) purge happened 1937-1938 thirty years after the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution."<br /><br />The Russian Revolution was in 1917 and the civil war continued until 1922. 30 years after that would be 1952. So its you that has your numbers wrong. 1937 is only 15 years after the end of the civil war and 20 years after the Revolution itself. And you used the phrase "followed soon after" when referring to the introduction of gun control in Germany in 1939. Which means you claimed it was "soon after" 1939.<br /><br /><br /><br />"But conveniently after the Russian population had been disarmed."<br /><br />The Whites weren't armed during the Civil War? If you check your facts you'll find that Deniken, Yudenich and Kolchak were indeed armed and had access to foreign arnaments as well. The White armies were badly led and suffered from lack of coordination. Access to guns wasn't a problem. <br /><br /><br />"In China the peasant population had been relieved of any method of defending themselves prior to the Chinese Communist rounding up million of people and executing them. A well armed Chinese poulation would have stood a far better chance at surviving than what actually happened to them."<br /><br />It was the Chinese peasants that gave the communists their strength. The Communists treated the peasants very well compared to how the KMT and Japanese treated them. Which is why their army grew compared to the desertions that afflicted the KMT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-47683148502154847432009-11-22T08:24:30.915-08:002009-11-22T08:24:30.915-08:00In response to anonymous regarding world history. ...In response to anonymous regarding world history. <br /><br />Regarding Germany. Do you think that the course of history might have been changed if the German people had the means to stand up to the Nazis? Unfortunately we can only speculate, but it certainly did not help that the people of Germany were all effectively disarmed by gun control measures prior to the Nazis seizing complete control.<br /><br />Regarding Switzerland. Prior to WW2 The Swiss people were largely agrarian. Bombing cities to starve them or defeat them with disease would have been ineffective. Think about it. A largely rural population that prodces much of its own food, lives in rough, steep terrain and is well armed and trained. Not worth the cost to invade.<br /><br />In Russia you just have your facts incorrect. The Great (Stalin) purge happened 1937-1938 thirty years after the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution. But conveniently after the Russian population had been disarmed.<br /><br />In China the peasant population had been relieved of any method of defending themselves prior to the Chinese Communist rounding up million of people and executing them. A well armed Chinese poulation would have stood a far better chance at surviving than what actually happened to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-42433186949344250662009-11-21T22:17:56.207-08:002009-11-21T22:17:56.207-08:00An evaluation of the Firearms Program is in the wo...An evaluation of the Firearms Program is in the works- why not see what it concludes. Hopefully, it will make it to the House Committee in time, and the RCMP Commissioner will be compelled to testify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-79365637486283614442009-11-21T17:02:44.524-08:002009-11-21T17:02:44.524-08:00The purges in Russia happened before gun control w...The purges in Russia happened before gun control was brought in. Lack of gun control didn't stop the purges.<br /><br />There was no gun control when the Bolsheviks seized power. But that would hurt your argument wouldn't it?<br /><br />In Germany Hitler had already consolidated power and used his gun toting buddies to rid Germany of opposition to his power. Again, perhaps if there had been gun control Hitler's brownshirts never could have intimidated the population in the first place.<br /><br />Same with China, who cared about gun control when the peasants didn't have enough money to buy guns anyway?<br /><br />As for Switzerland, they were more help to Hitler by not invading them. Switzerland was pretty much a client-state of Germany's where high ranking Germans stored their loot. Read "Nazi Gold". If Hitler had felt any need to conquer Switzerland he could have bombed its cities and with no borders with any country not allied to Germany, the Swiss would have been reduced by starvation and disease.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-39720650059491681492009-11-19T22:15:11.292-08:002009-11-19T22:15:11.292-08:00I agree with Bill Tielman 100%.
And just why is t...I agree with Bill Tielman 100%.<br /><br />And just why is the gun lobby so vociferous about their "right" to own an unregistered firearm? Why own a firearm at all?<br /><br />Does it make these people feel more manly or womanly? Does it give them a great sense of power?<br /><br />The gun lobby will argue we need guns for self-defense, but never present evidence that this is necessary. With 35 million people in the country, such a self defense event may occur every few years. Very rare events do not justify that argument.<br /><br />The fact is there are no good reasons for owning a gun other than subsistence hunting. Ban them all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-70031413322065151922009-11-18T17:51:24.451-08:002009-11-18T17:51:24.451-08:00Here is the third part of the April 8 2009 article...Here is the third part of the April 8 2009 article by Christie Blatchford:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />But Dr. Jones told The Globe that most of the ethics committee <br />members had concerns about the sponsorships, not just Taser's, which <br />is why it sent committee co-chairs, RCMP Assistant Commissioner Sandra <br />Conlin, her force's ethics adviser, and Edmonton Deputy Chief Norm <br />Lipinski, to the board meeting. That, he said, was a measure of the <br />committee's concern. <br /><br />Mr. Conlin referred The Globe to Mr. Lipinski, saying he was the <br />ethics committee spokesman. He was out of town and didn't return The <br />Globe's call. <br /><br />Dr. Jones, who at 66 has spent several decades of his career <br />lecturing and consulting about ethical conduct, particularly in <br />policing, also recently resigned as an adviser to the International <br />Association of Chiefs of Police. <br /><br />He rued how the CACP conferences have become increasingly "gaudy" <br />affairs, with each host city trying to outdo the other, with members <br />expecting bigger and better freebies. Indeed, Mr. Cuthbert's own <br />figures - he said it now costs between $800,000 and $1-million to hold <br />such conferences - back up Dr. Jones' perception. <br /><br />Asked why the chiefs and senior police executives don't just finance <br />their own conferences, Dr. Jones replied, "That's what we'd like." <br /><br />He said there was "a shocking disconnect" between the lavish <br />conferences for senior police and their increasing demands upon their <br />rank-and-file that they refuse even a free coffee from the local <br />doughnut store. "People now want their leaders to walk the talk," he <br />said.Rod Smelsernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-40088174197661211592009-11-18T17:48:43.005-08:002009-11-18T17:48:43.005-08:00Here is the second part of the April 8, 2009 Chris...Here is the second part of the April 8, 2009 Christie Blatchford article:<br /><br /><br />That meeting happened in November, and by December the CACP's executive director, Peter Cuthbert, replied by memo on behalf of the board, basically thanking the committee members for their concerns, but repeating that the board was satisfied the association was abiding by its sponsorship guidelines. <br /><br />It was at the committee's first meeting of the new year last week in Ottawa that Mr. Cuthbert's memo was read aloud, prompting Dr. Jones to walk away from his voluntary position. <br /><br />While he said he was told by senior members of the committee that Taser gave $200,000 to the 2008 conference, Mr. Cuthbert is adamant the manufacturers of the controversial "conducted energy weapons," as the CACP prefers to call them, contributed only $25,000. <br /><br />But he also said that over the past three years, taser has kicked in a total of $75,000 for conference sponsorship. <br /><br />Mr. Cuthbert was insistent there is nothing wrong with the sponsorship practice, and said that part of the association's job is to bring to the attention of the chiefs "the products and tools that are available to a police service." He then suggested that Taser was only one maker of "conducted energy weapons," but, when pressed, admitted he knew of no other and said, "I guess Taser is the only name out there." <br /><br />According to Mr. Cuthbert, the total corporate sponsorship of last <br />year's conference - by, among others, Power Corporation, the Canadian <br />Bankers Association, Loto-Québec, Microsoft, Motorola and the RCMP, <br />ironic given that it means the Mounties shared the platform with the very product whose use has brought the force into such disrepute in the Robert Dziekanski incident - topped $500,000. <br /><br />The RCMP sponsors only the professional development part of the conference program. <br /><br />One of Mr. Cuthbert's defences for the association accepting sponsorships is the CACP does "no buying, no endorsement, no promotion" of any products, including sponsors', and makes no "binding <br />recommendations." <br /><br />But in fact, just six weeks ago the CACP held a press conference in Ottawa with the Canadian Police Association to announce what they called "the police position on Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs)" and issued both a position document and a press release. <br /><br />The groups said they were acting out of concern that "inaccurate and <br />incomplete" media reporting about the weapons may have led to public misunderstanding and in effect gave CEWs their blessing. <br /><br />In January, Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino, a CACP member, spoke at an association workshop on CEWs and gave the weapon an even more ringing endorsement, and denounced the "irresponsible journalism" surrounding the issue. <br /><br />Mr. Fantino was at least more direct: he called a spade a spade and used both terms, CEWs and tasers, to describe the weapon. <br /><br />When Mr. Cuthbert was asked if it wouldn't have been better for the <br />CACP to have publicly praised tasers with clean hands, he disagreed, <br />and said, "Other than that, I tell you, with the board, it was not an <br />issue ... the board was very, very comfortable with this." <br /><br />But Dr. Jones told The Globe that most of the ethics committee members had concerns about the sponsorships, not just Taser's, which is why it sent committee co-chairs, RCMP Assistant Commissioner Sandra <br />Conlin, her force's ethics adviser, and Edmonton Deputy Chief Norm <br />Lipinski, to the board meeting. That, he said, was a measure of the <br />committee's concern.Rod Smelsernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-78058187353762530942009-11-18T17:39:29.946-08:002009-11-18T17:39:29.946-08:00In the column above, Bill says:
The Canadian Asso...In the column above, Bill says:<br /><br />The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is "biased" and "political"? A ridiculous argument ... <br />=========================<br /><br /><br /><br />Here is the first of two parts of an article from the Globe and Mail:<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Police ethics adviser quits over sponsors </b><br /><br />Concerns over role of companies like Taser International in funding <br />lavish conferences were rebuffed, he says <br /><br />CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD <br /><br />The Globe and Mail, April 8, 2009 <br /><br />The technical adviser to the ethics committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has resigned over corporate sponsorship - including that of Taser International - of the group's annual conference. <br /><br />John Jones, an expert on police ethics who has advised the committee for three years, quit Thursday after the committee's efforts to stop the practice was rebuffed by the board of directors. <br /><br />"I said in that case, I can't remain a member," a saddened Dr. Jones, the author of Reputable Conduct: Ethical Issues in Policing and Corrections, told The Globe and Mail in a phone interview yesterday from his Ottawa home. " doesn't pass the smell test." <br /><br />The CACP is composed of police chiefs and senior police executives from across Canada and represents most of the country's 220-plus forces. <br /><br />Dr. Jones and the members of the ethics committee were in Montreal in <br />August for two days of meetings around the CACP's annual conference when they learned about Taser's sponsorship and that of others, including a joint Bell Mobility-CGI-Group Techna donation of $115,000, which went toward the purchase of 1,000 tickets at $215 each to a Celine Dion concert on Aug. 25. <br /><br />Each registered CACP delegate received one ticket as part of his $595 <br />registration package; if his spouse was also registered for the spouses' program, she or he received another. Virtually all meals were <br />also sponsored. <br /><br />The ethics members raised the sponsorship issue with the CACP executive committee in mid-conference - "expressed our surprise and dismay" is how the genteel Dr. Jones put it - but later followed up with a formal request for the committee co-chairs to speak to the full board of directors.Rod Smelsernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-33979269759005549982009-11-18T17:31:01.824-08:002009-11-18T17:31:01.824-08:00Re: statistical decline--In other words the demogr...Re: statistical decline--In other words the demographic factors (declining proportion of young males) and improved law enforcement & crime detection is having predictable effects in the area of long guns but is being offset by something else when it comes to handguns. In BC, one is inclined to imagine that that something else is the rise of organized drug crime and gangs, who have smuggled handguns in to the country.Mark Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11904245045490682686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-74094937441763747752009-11-18T17:10:33.382-08:002009-11-18T17:10:33.382-08:00"We believe that the gun registry provides po..."We believe that the gun registry provides police services across this country with the information they need, first of all to help us keep communities safe, and also to keep police officers safe," Blair said. "We lose it at our peril."<br />----------------------------------<br /><br />Bill, The upper paragraph is from your Nov10/09 write up favoring the Gun Registry. <br />The following paragraph pertains to what is occurring in N. W.T. today. Just how actually "safe" and "effective" is the gun registry? Ask the wife of this young Mountie.<br /><br /> A jury in Yellowknife began deliberating Wednesday Nov.18/09 in the trial of a man accused of killing an RCMP officer in Hay River, N.W.T.<br />Emrah Bulatci, 25, is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Const. Christopher Worden in Hay River on Oct. 6, 2007.<br />------------------<br />Rod Smelser said... 1:58 PM<br />It looks like Bill Tieleman's wishes in terms of a whipped vote on this matter may becoming true, at least for the Libs In caucus. the Count told his MPs that he is “taking under advisement” the recommendation by the Liberal Whip Rodger Cuzner to “control private member’s votes,” according to an inside source. <br /><br /><br /> Is this what you want Tieleman , eliminate all the MPs votes, then run the country using only the leaders , Harper,The Count,Layton, Duceppe.Henri Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-45197803518004013022009-11-18T14:28:43.289-08:002009-11-18T14:28:43.289-08:00SO whether to scrap the registry may boil down to ...SO whether to scrap the registry may boil down to an empirical question.<br />========================<br /><br />Mark, you might find some interesting empirical material in this article, from the website of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). It's an article by James Sheptycki, a Prof of Criminology at York Univ.<br /><br />One thing I found particulalry interesting was his Fig 3, showing rates of deaths caused by firearms from 1976 to 2006.<br /><br />Here is the accompanying section of the text:<br /><br />"What these data reveal is that, amid a long-term downward trend in homicide generally (Figure 2), murders committed with so-called ‘long-guns’ (rifles and shotguns) declined uite precipitously. However, from about 1991 handguns surpassed long-guns in homicide statistics prevalence in Canada (Figure 3). What this Figure shows, using data available in 2006, is that after three years of increases, the gun-homicide rate decreased 16 per cent to about the same level as 20 years previously. In that year, 190 people (31% of homicide victims) were killed with a gun, 33 fewer than the previous year. The longer-term trend in gun-homicide shows a general decline since the mid-1970s, similar to the trend in total homicides. After the ‘cross-over’ in 1991 the rate of handgun homicide remained relatively constant while the homicide rate for long-guns continued its historic decline."Rod Smelsernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-91677177347226354912009-11-18T14:20:30.861-08:002009-11-18T14:20:30.861-08:00Bill ,I know this is a little off topic....,but ba...Bill ,I know this is a little off topic....,but barry penner is he Bubbles from the trailer park boys,in contact lenses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-92047832414095612142009-11-18T13:58:25.032-08:002009-11-18T13:58:25.032-08:00It looks like Bill Tieleman's wishes in terms ...It looks like Bill Tieleman's wishes in terms of a whipped vote on this matter may becoming true, at least for the Liberals.<br /><br />It seems that Bob Rae, oen of the two turncoat NDP Premiers, didn't like the fact that eight Liberals voted in favour of C391.<br /><br /><br />http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/liberals-get-realistic-on-gun-registry/article1368417/<br /><br />Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:02 PM<br /><br />Liberals get 'realistic' on gun-registry <br /><br />Jane Taber <br /><br />Michael Ignatieff is reconsidering his decision to allow his MPs to vote however they wish on private member’s bills after the fiasco of the long-gun registry vote. <br /><br />In caucus today, the Liberal Leader told his MPs that he is “taking under advisement” the recommendation by the Liberal Whip Rodger Cuzner to “control private member’s votes,” according to an inside source. <br />...<br /><br />Mr. Ignatieff made his comments after an intervention by Toronto Liberal MP Bob Rae, warning of the divisive nature of issue. It is believed that the Harper Tories are using this as a wedge to disrupt the unity of the Liberal caucus. <br /><br />The long-gun registry bill is now before an all-party Commons committee and Mr. Rae urged his colleagues to be “politically realistic,” said the source, about putting forward amendments that may not pass. <br /><br />He said that there is “no need” to do “great heroics” or “climb mountains” to try to push through amendments. He said that this issue can cause “internal damage” to the party, the insider said. <br /><br />Mr. Rae, meanwhile, had this to say after the weekly closed-door party meeting: “I absolutely refuse to comment on anything said in caucus – my views on gun control are well known. I am a supporter of the registry. Period.”Rod Smelsernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-38917579201112839272009-11-18T13:16:24.046-08:002009-11-18T13:16:24.046-08:00For me, there are no philosophical reasons to scra...For me, there are no philosophical reasons to scrap the long gun registry. SO whether to scrap the registry may boil down to an empirical question. Is most of the money 'wasted' so far a sunk cost, for which we can only hope to recover some benefit by keeping it in place? Or will it continue to cost billions, which could be re-deployed more effectively elsewhere?Mark Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11904245045490682686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-19889390306909474712009-11-18T09:37:52.301-08:002009-11-18T09:37:52.301-08:00Sounds sort of like the NRA's position on the ...Sounds sort of like the NRA's position on the "right to bear arms". I really wonder if the folks here who write about how we don't need a registry because way back when,there wasn't a registry, or are they taking a position because the past Liberal governemtn had brought one in. The old saw about the right to hunt, and protect ourselves from some animal or person is a bit heavy for me personally.Yes there are gun clubs and ranges that are licensed to handle guns, yet some folks here either don't see that as an issue, or choose to ignore it. Lots of folks joined the military and some even shot and killed others. Interesting to me , is that my family members who were doing such things in the army, never were seen picking up a gun again. Mind you npbpdy in our immediae circel of freinds are in business trying to sell the things. Lots of things can kill people, but ones really exist for one purpose and that is to kill something and with any kind of luck, while shooting at something, they miss us. But this argument won't go away until the bill finally fails. as for cost, well our present government spends more money bailing out failing companies that the gun registry so let's put things in perspective.DPLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-63782398698119636052009-11-18T08:31:34.502-08:002009-11-18T08:31:34.502-08:00Canada is a culturally pluralistic society. One of...Canada is a culturally pluralistic society. One of our cultures is the ancient activity of hunting and fishing which includes private firearms ownership. Our Constitution is supposed to protect the individual's right to private property and yet we are faced with the situation that through legislation (the Firearms Act) private property in the form of firearms has been and continues to be confiscated without compensation.<br /><br />It is even more unusual in that a Liberal government brought in the Act and supporting regulations!<br /><br />Constitutions are living documents and grow through Amendments. In 1982 firearms were not a political issue. Hence, it is not surprising that the culture of firearms was not mentioned. That right pre-existed Canada and had been understood until Liberal governments denied it and sought to erase the culture by a concentrated attack on that law abiding minority.<br /><br />Many urbanites are ignorant of the history and meaning of the 'gun' culture of Canada and for various reasons are willing to extinguish it. This flys in the face of what multiculturalism is supposed to mean.<br /><br />The Montreal Police Union is but one vote for a registry. Mr. T is still cherry picking with this example. Quebec attitudes are frequently out of step with the rest of the country.<br /><br />Supporting political bodies like the Chiefs Association with their history of donations may satisfy Mr. T but more discriminating Canadians will recognise them for what they are - an executive pimping a position that is based on self-interest more than it is on science.<br /><br />Canadian courts frequently refer to American precedents but that does not mean our firearms culture is the same as the American gun culture.<br /><br />Ignorance and fear of firearms is no basis for opinion. Neither is false science, fear mongering and propaganda a just basis for legislation. Bad law is bad law and only brings disrepute on the political parties or government that champion it. In the final analysis that is why the long gun registry must go.zeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07155875910792853753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-71144030599367845902009-11-18T08:31:22.899-08:002009-11-18T08:31:22.899-08:00" I detect the drift of American political cu..." I detect the drift of American political culture across the border in some of these debates."<br />--------------------------<br /><br /><br />No kidding, eh Mark!<br /><br />As the article by Dixon explains, the importation of American "cultural politics" can be found on the pro-registry side of this issue just as easily as on the anti-registry side.<br /><br />It's either amusing or infuriating, depending on your mood, to hear one side of this discussion angrily and sanctimoniously accuse the other of gutless political pandering ... and then go on to cite public opinion polls reporting some majority or plurality favouring their position.<br /><br />Personally I would put that kind of thing right up there with being told by a car salesman that the dealer two blocks down the road is dishonest!Rod Smelsernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-65086021703756215652009-11-18T08:31:17.198-08:002009-11-18T08:31:17.198-08:00Bill,
I think your comments about how majorities...Bill, <br /><br />I think your comments about how majorities in each party should over rule minorities says a lot about the overbearing mentality that created the registry in the first place. <br /><br />Had Alan Rock shown any pragmatic political skills, this issue could have been resolved at the time, and we would not be facing a majority Harper government. New Democrats could have argued for a compromise or consensus, but didn't.<br /><br />This was a case of angry people imposing bad policy on a (then) unpopular minority. <br /><br />You can quote all the statistics you want, but the vast majority of gun owners commit no violence against women whatsoever, yet feel they have taken the weight of blame for what is done by a tiny. <br /><br />Many focus on the guns themselves, but few ever talk about the intrusive questionaire which goes along with the registration process, which is based entirely on assumptions which seem reasonable on the face, but which are not supported by the science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-65592805279639592312009-11-17T22:32:16.020-08:002009-11-17T22:32:16.020-08:00To "Citizen Oliver" and all readers - I ...To "Citizen Oliver" and all readers - I strongly suggest you check out his website: "Christian Taxpayer Free Press" where you will find this description of his mission:<br /><br />"There is a war being waged by Satan-inspired ruling elites determined to destroy the way of life and system of values of We The People. <br /><br />They wage this war so that they can pursue their criminal agenda unhindered by anyone devoted to the concepts of law and justice. Our purpose is to expose these criminals and see that they're brought to justice."<br /><br />I think I'll just stick with the stated views of the Montreal police union president in my column versus the above, despite the possibility I have foolishly allied myself with the spawn of Satan.<br /><br />I rest my case, your honour.Bill Tielemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03304971610140279157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-87278668561429204882009-11-17T21:43:39.125-08:002009-11-17T21:43:39.125-08:00Bill, you use Yves Francouer of the Montreal Polic...Bill, you use Yves Francouer of the Montreal Police Union as an example of how the police back the gun registry but here's an average comment from the nutbar Mr. Francouer...<br /> <br />"Our job, as police officers, is repression. We don't need a social worker as a Director, we need a general. After all, the police is a paramilitary organization, let's not forget it."<br /><br />Nice. A clear and obvious wingnut. And one who's stated aim is repression. What the hell?<br /><br />Citizen Oliver<br /><br />www.obeythepeople.blogspot.com<br /><br />oliver30011649@gmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-77577303572284616852009-11-17T20:02:41.010-08:002009-11-17T20:02:41.010-08:00Thank you Mr. Smeiser for setting the stage. The w...Thank you Mr. Smeiser for setting the stage. The whole history of the Firearms Act is about as sordid as any political program past or present.<br /><br />Canadians from all sections of the country have come to the conclusion the long gun registry must go (as shown in all surveys in the past two years). Yes, opposition MPs voted with the government to pass the 2nd reading. We elect MPs to represent us. Frankly, I am sick of whipped votes. Mr. T talks about a majority of opposition MPs. Think about what a small section of the electorate this is - less than 50% of all eligible voters. Shall we rightly call it the tyranny of the minority?<br /><br />Much of what Mr. T refers to quite simply highlights the failures of the gun registry to prevent crime as in the case of Montreal and Meyerthorpe or the countless gang killings.<br /><br />There has been no real response here in defense of the gun registry. Specific points are ignored when unanswerable to the favour of the registry.<br /><br />The CFC and the RCMP have compromised the privacy of the records in a worse case scenario.<br /><br />I suppose Mr. T's support is driven by a political agenda rather than by fair appraisal of the program. No amount of facts or argument will sway the true believers.<br /><br />Denying the historic culture of firearms ownership in Canada may be Liberal but it sure is not the fact for millions of Canadians that live it.<br /><br />The facts of the failures have not been refuted. Wishing it so does not make it so. How many years of an expensive failure do we need to bear to bring everyone together, 25, 35, 50?<br /><br />In conclusion, there is no new defense of the gun registry here. Just more of the same old combined with a blind belief.zeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07155875910792853753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35935973.post-778024251992604152009-11-17T17:47:41.040-08:002009-11-17T17:47:41.040-08:00I basically agree with you Bill--even if there is ...I basically agree with you Bill--even if there is something about the cost of the registry or its application to rural citizens that is somewhat "scandalous" , that does not obviate the Registry itself. I detect the drift of American political culture across the border in some of these debates.Mark Crawfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11904245045490682686noreply@blogger.com