Harper gun registry solution just a "shell game"

[Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer]

The CPC ran on the promise of scrapping the long-gun registrate, if brought to a vote in the House two things will happen. One, the house votes to scrap it or 2, the house votes to retain it. The bigger issue is MP's will be FORCED to show their true colours on this issue and voters will know where these MP's stand come next election. Harper appears to be playing the same game as Charest did during the 1997 election namely say one thing to one group while another thing to another group. Let democracy decide.

[doggedlyright]

Harper and the Red Tories that are runnning the shop, are making the majority of their decisions based on polling, expecially in Ontario, Quebec and the large metropolists.

They have never been principled conservatives but single principle politicians and insiders ... "power of the elected dictator" at all costs to get their hands on the public trough for the milking.

[rbacon]

I don't believe Harper or CPC MP's are theives or liars....But when Harper gets his majority he needs to clean out all departments start a massive firing campaign of all Liberal and NDP sympathizers....He needs to drastically reduce the size of Gubment....

[Mark Fournier]

Fact: Although some opposition MPs would break ranks with their parties on a vote to scrap the gun registry, that number would be less than the 30 needed for a majority vote.

Is that your opinion or a fact? If it is a fact, please source.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Fact: Although some opposition MPs would break ranks with their parties on a vote to scrap the gun registry, that number would be less than the 30 needed for a majority vote.

Is that your opinion or a fact? If it is a fact, please source.

It's a fact and the source is my own personal evaluation of the current members of the HoC.

[Mark Fournier]

It's a fact and the source is my own personal evaluation of the current members of the HoC.

And the difference between a personal evaluation and an opinion is...?

[Akimoya]

The person making the positive statement "It's possible to axe it now in a vote in the HoC" has the burden of proof to provide evidence to back up their statement.

Of course, nobody is required to answer any of your disruptive questions at all...we're not here to satisfy *your* expectations.

But you will notice that they said "possible" - that doesn't venture into it being "probable", or even "likely"...

But if you perfer we could get rid of that very western principle and move towards something else.... like guilty until proven innocent for example.

Fallacy of the "False Dichotomy" - I guess you never studied the western principles of "logic".

[doggedlyright]

rbacon suggests:

I don't believe Harper or CPC MP's are theives or liars

I do believe that the current crop of conservatives have acted as theives and liars. Both Harper and MacKay lied to their memberships (one was stupid enough to put it in writing) to attain the power of leader.

The rest have continued like all politicians to theive from the taxpayer trough when it comes to their pays and their benefits.

rbacon hopes:

....But when Harper gets his majority he needs to clean out all departments start a massive firing campaign of all Liberal and NDP sympathizers....He needs to drastically reduce the size of Gubment

Like all conservative governments, do not hold your breath. I fully expect the size of government to increase under a majority CPC government since he relies on the old Mulroney gang for guidance and strategy.

[Akimoya]

The CPC ran on the promise of scrapping the long-gun registrate,

We all know what "campaign promises" are worth, don't we? What matters, as WLM has been saying, is PARTY POLICY. What matters is what the RFC has been DEMANDING for the past decade: "SCRAP C-68!".

Fool me once (Lieberals), shame on you. Fool me twice (CPC), shame on me.

The bigger issue is MP's will be FORCED to show their true colours on this issue and voters will know where these MP's stand come next election.

And what action would you recommend, based on this voting record?

Harper appears to be playing the same game as Charest did during the 1997 election namely say one thing to one group while another thing to another group.

Such has it always been...

[JurisNaturalist]

Well, I guess it boils down to two questions.

And, can the groups with different policy interests work together long enough to accomplish anything of consequence?

If socons, gun owners, anti-enviroweenies and the like can't even put aside our differences well enough to coexist on the same political forum, I'm afraid we will be doomed to sit on the sidelines and watch each other be sold out for the sake of power.

There is a lot of brain power on this site. There are things we can do, but we have to have the political will to do it.

I'm unaware that there are any real differences. Most here were reformers or reluctant PCs because there was always an active element of populism and grass roots democracy at play in these organizations.

Regarless of your single issue axe grinding the common ground is this:

We all want Open accessable, responsible accountable leadership and an end to unstated unilateral political agendas in federal politics.

We all want an end to elitism and staism in our leaders.

We all want a return to constitutional federalism. populist policymaking and grass root democratic refom.

We all agree the concept that social justice, and a civil society stems government serving the people and not the reverse

We all agree the concept that the government which governs least governs best

We all want a system all government/public funtionaries and institutions and acts must be accountable to a constitution which clearly defines the limits of government and the rights of citizens

These are the concepts that brought the diverse single issue activists together in Reform then CA and now CPC....but CPC has been hijacked again by those with personal agendas that are not linear with the will of the membership.

We have been betrayed again by elites.

New party time?

Or time to rethink your political colors.

These issues are NOT about left and right, conservative or liberal ...they are about principle or corruption, freedom or state bondage, civil society or elitist treachery.

I think people should stop thinking in terms of being a good liberal or a good conservative and think more in terms of being a good and responsible citizen....and you can't be that when you form into little political tribes each lobbying the government or a party to use the coersive power of the state to suppress or damage people who think differnetly than you.

Government has become monolithic, intrisive and reponsive only to special interests....thei leviathan has to be put back into pandora's box before its statist power agendas and partisan factionalization tear this civil society apart and make the constitution a worthless piece of paper which they trespass upon routinely.

I'm willing to stand along side ANYONE who sees the real enemy and is willing to fight......and the real enemy of the Canadian people does not live in Caves in Afghanistan...it lives in posh surroundings in Ottawa and you do not elect it...you only elect its temporary symbolic boss every 4 years. Our enemy is system-entrenched unaccountable power which has an unstated agenda....and this common ground transcends all partisan lines.

Either you want to willingly surrender your freedom, individual and national socereignty and free will to autocratic oligarchs or you want to fight to remain free of the tendancy of ALL governments, institutions and unelected policy cabals to become corrupt and unresponsive.

There is your common ground.

I agree completely....so...How do you suggest we change this???

[Jason Kauppinen]

It's a fact and the source is my own personal evaluation of the current members of the HoC.

And the difference between a personal evaluation and an opinion is...?

Evidence, and the possibility of being proven wrong.

So I've outlined my case.

Where's the 30+ opposition members who would break ranks?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

[Mark Fournier]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion, Jason, but anyone else could look at the same thing and come up with another "personal evaluation". Both parties would be expressing their opinions, but we are probably just arguing semantics here.

[Mark Fournier]

If the CPC lost a vote to scrap the gun registry, is there anything preventing them from budgeting only $1.00 for its continued operation?

[Jason Kauppinen]

Of course, nobody is required to answer any of your disruptive questions at all...we're not here to satisfy *your* expectations.

Yeah, I guess if a person were dependant upon delusions, then my questions would be disruptive to them.

But you will notice that they said "possible" - that doesn't venture into it being "probable", or even "likely"...

How possible does a thing have to be in order for it to be worth attempting?

Getting the 30+ at this time is so improbable as to be basically impossible.

That many opposition members are simply not all going to all have life changing experiences, or personal revelations to the point where they're all going to do a 180 on gun control.

But if you perfer we could get rid of that very western principle and move towards something else.... like guilty until proven innocent for example.

Fallacy of the "False Dichotomy" - I guess you never studied the western principles of "logic".

Let me get this straight, you're saying that the principle of placing the burden of proof upon those making a positive statement vs. the principle of placing the burden of proof upon those making a negative statement is a false dichotomy?

Go ahead and explain how.

[Jason Kauppinen]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion, Jason, but anyone else could look at the same thing and come up with another "personal evaluation". Both parties would be expressing their opinions, but we are probably just arguing semantics here.

Not all opinions are equal.

I'm sure you're didn't give much value to Hedy Fry's "crosses are burning" statement, right?