Harper gun registry solution just a "shell game"

[Mark Fournier]

Who should be doing it?

The CPC government.

What should be done?

The gun registry should be scrapped.

Where should it be done?

In the House of Commons.

When should it be done?

Yesterday.

Why do it that way?

We have a Parliamentary system.

How should it be done?

A bill scrapping the gun registry should be presented for a vote.

[Connie Fournier]

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.

Good. That is what I was hoping you would say.

Except for the single issue ax-grinding part.

Check your PMs.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Show me, right here on this thread, which opposition MPs would join in with the CPC,

in numbers that would make a majority,

in voting to scrap the registry.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Conversely, show me, right here on this thread, which opposition MPs would not join in with the CPC,

in numbers that would make a majority,

in voting to scrap the registry.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

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.

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.

[Wlyonmackenzie]

Did anyone read what I just wrote?

If people here think they can do better than whats been done up to this point then they can step up to the freaking plate and show all of us how they could do it better.

Who should be doing it?
What should be done?
Where should it be done?
When should it be done?
Why do it that way?
How should it be done?

Putting forward requests without accompanied, realistic means is just spouting slogans, which is good enough.... if you live in 1960's China.

Canada, and Free Dominion, and even the people making these requests all deserve higher standards of performance.

A document was prpared by the best legal minds on the firearms act...it outlined exactly how the more damaging and onerous sections of the firearms act could be defused by using the existing OIC structures in the firearms legislation...the changes didn't need parliamentary approval to go into force.....this would have decriminalized millions of paper criminals the current regulations create and given us breathing space until a CPC majority couls repeal C-68 in its entirety. This was distributed to all CPC caucus members.

It was a declaration from the firearms owners organizations that we understood the limitations of minority governing and were happy if some no risk relief was set in motion before a comprehensive replacement law was presented to Parliament.

We also cautioned the caucus about persuing a full repeal of sections 91, 92, 117 of the criminal code ( where the contentious firearms registry and licencing laws exists and sticking to changing things like section 12(6) of the firearms act through OIC and ridding us of other regulations which are onerous and questionably constitutional. We were ignored.

Instead the CPC decided to concoct a bill which appears to remove the registry but does not in practical application and also retains criminalization of non criminal possession....done in a vacuum, without input from true firarms law experts outside departmental hacks or experts in the caucus or in disregard of written party policy.

What is there that can't be improved upon here Jason?....any chimpanze can concoct a decietful half hearted attempt and produce a poorly crafted incomplete bill that is doomed to fail passing...once it failed they shrug and say "oh well we tried" and drop the issue like an rotting albatorss...if it passes they say "promise kept" and wash their hands of the issue for good when in fact they have done little they promised in the bill.

The man point is that they did not deliver on their own member passed policy....better no attempt than one doomed to fail or which defies party policy.

[Mark Fournier]

Show me, right here on this thread, which opposition MPs would join in with the CPC,

in numbers that would make a majority,

in voting to scrap the registry.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Conversely, show me, right here on this thread, which opposition MPs would not join in with the CPC,

in numbers that would make a majority,

in voting to scrap the registry.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

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.

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.

What your argument boils down to is if someone hasn't done the research (polled every MP in Canada about how they would vote, and can prove the answers the MPs gave were true) his argument isn't valid. That knife cuts both ways. Unless you do the same research proving your assertion that it wouldn't pass - your argument isn't valid either.

This particular argument you presented appears to be an attempt to silence those on the other side of your viewpoint. It's a debating ploy completely lacking substance.

[Jason Kauppinen]

A document was prepared by the best legal minds on the firearms act...it outlined exactly how the more damaging and onerous sections of the firearms act couls be defused by using the existing oIC structures in the legislation...the changes didn't need parliamentary approval to go into force.....this would have decriminalized millions of paper criminals the current regulations create. This was distributed to all CPC caucus members.

Never heard about it.

We also cautioned the caucus about persuing a full repeal of sections 91, 92, 117 of the criminal code ( where the contentious firearms laws exists and sticking to changing things like section 12(6) of the firearms act through OIC and ridding us of other regulations which are oberous and questionably constitutional.

Well at least now there's an alternative being presented to the: "Oh the CPC has a majority and they've decided to not deliver on this issue." lunacy that has been floating around here.

Of course you can be quite assured that the Liberals would scream about how while Harper is pushing for democratic reforms, he's willing to use undemocratic means to pursue objectives. Not exactly principled.

I do find it astonishing though that because people see that Harper has refused to call a House vote on an issue that he knows the CPC would lose at this time that somehow he's betrayed anything.

Clearly, I had no idea that martyrdom was one of the job requirements for being the party leader and Prime Minister.

[Wlyonmackenzie]

Show me, right here on this thread, which opposition MPs would join in with the CPC,

in numbers that would make a majority,

in voting to scrap the registry.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Conversely, show me, right here on this thread, which opposition MPs would not join in with the CPC,

in numbers that would make a majority,

in voting to scrap the registry.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

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.

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.

You can't seriously expect a lobbyist or the CPC Caucus to publicly produce a list of opposition members willing to vote with the government on a possible non cofidence issue....you really are not this ignorant of parliemantary process Jason ....s0o I have to assume you have become a reflex partisan appologist .....time to think like a person who wants good government rather than partisan government.

Government isn't a hockey game where you pick a team to cheer for no matter how crappy they play...citizenship is not about fan loyaly" it's about loyalty to an ideal...A Canadian Ideal that states we give concent to be governed IF we recieve peace order and good government in return....I don't read any pprivate unspoken policy agendas or blind partisanism into this basic concept.....amybe more of the "new" trained seals in CPC seats should reevaluate where their loyalty belongs....with the agendas of unelected leadership "handlers and policy hacks" or with their constituents, party members and the Canadian people.

[Jason Kauppinen]

What your argument boils down to is if someone hasn't done the research (polled every MP in Canada about how they would vote, and can prove the answers the MPs gave were true) his argument isn't valid. That knife cuts both ways. Unless you do the same research proving your assertion that it wouldn't pass - your argument isn't valid either.

No.

The argument is invalid because it has no supporting evidence.

It's not that controversial to state that the Liberal, NDP, and the Bloc would vote against an attempt to axe the gun registry, and that whomever among those three parties who would break ranks to vote with the goverment would total less than the 31 that the vote would need to pass.

Given that fact, asking someone who believes it is, in fact (and not based on some kind of childish wah wah I'm not getting what I want right away attitude) possible to produce a list of 31+ opposition MPs who could at the very least be probably be counted upon to support the government on such a vote is not a tall order to meet at all.

This particular argument you presented appears to be an attempt to silence those on the other side of your viewpoint. It's a debating ploy completely lacking substance.

Get real man.

What I'm asking is for people to back up what they say with facts, or with somthing approaching a realistic scenario. How can asking someone to prove what they say, to strengthen their argument with facts, be an attempt to silence?

The inference that it is an attempt to "silence" is totally retarded.

Positions here are supposed to stand on their own merits.

[Jason Kauppinen]

You can't seriously expect a lobbyist or the CPC Caucus to publicly produce a list of opposition members willing to vote with the government on a possible non cofidence issue....

And you are one or a member of the other?

[rbacon]

I gotta back WLM on this issue...Especially the fact that the Leviathan we call Gubment has our best interests at heart....We all know he is on a knifes edge...And I am sure he is intelligent enough to know that even with a minority if he has to go to the polls, that even in Quebec and Ontario there is a rock bottom core of about 25% small c conservatives that will support him...The bigger issue here tho is Gubment itself...One man elected by 30,000 votes making all decisions for 30,000,000...Liberty and Freedom....A constitution of the people by the people and for the people...Not a paper cobbled up by Trudeau the Commie Ass Kisser's Lieut. the Slack Jawed small time crook from Quebec and forced upon the people without a ratifying vote...The big issues here in the West are Equalization, Kyoto, CWB and the infamous c-68....As far as c-68 is concerned almost no one here obeys it anyway....For now the Separtist Watch Dog is asleep at the farm gate...Watching the machinations from Ottawa with one eye open....If Harper fails, or if he gives in to the Leviathan and Albertan's get riled up, it will end the country and very very fast....Albertan's have a natural and well founded distrust of Ottawa and we are not asleep we destroyed the PC Party of McDonald because of the Red Tory faction, like the maggot Joe Who.And the Internationalist Mulroney..We can and will bring down the CPC if the pandering to Quebec and Ontario goes too far and our interests are ignored....Freedom and Liberty...

[MinorityReport]

I do find it astonishing though that because people see that Harper has refused to call a House vote on an issue that he knows the CPC would lose at this time that somehow he's betrayed anything.

Harper is will to call a house vote on SSM and i'm quite sure he has a better chance on losing with that.Given the fact that there were several Liberal MP's who were against such a divisive issue as SSM i'm quite sure there are some who would be opposed to the registry.I'm sure some of the NDP mp's from saskatchewan would vote to scrap c68 as well.

[Mark Fournier]

What I'm asking is for people to back up what they say with facts, or with somthing approaching a realistic scenario

That's all I'm doing too. You said a vote against scrapping the gun registry wouldn't pass. Back that opinion up with facts.

[Wlyonmackenzie]

A document was prepared by the best legal minds on the firearms act...it outlined exactly how the more damaging and onerous sections of the firearms act couls be defused by using the existing oIC structures in the legislation...the changes didn't need parliamentary approval to go into force.....this would have decriminalized millions of paper criminals the current regulations create. This was distributed to all CPC caucus members.

Never heard about it.

I'm not surprised. a lot of expert advice from outside the small "approved" advisory circle has been ignored...that's what happenes when you see the process of rewriting membership ratified policy in a departmental vacuum.

If you want a coppy contact Tony Bernardo at CILA or CSSA he had enough printed up for each MP to have 2 copies and they were all mailed...there are still lots left ,,,ask for one and then ask your CPC MP or opposition MP if they got it.

It's dry but enlightening reading on how the contentious parts of the firearms laws could be defused with by understanding the fireams law and using its OIC and regulatory chanhe mechanisms to pull it off...all without the need for opposition approval....then liberals built the law this way for this purpose...we can use it against them....but it take intellectual honesty and some degree of legla knowledge and statecraft to carry this off...maube the CPC caucus is just plain dumb and incompetent....or perhaps they are trained seals following an agenda giben to them by the top?

[Jason Kauppinen]

What I'm asking is for people to back up what they say with facts, or with somthing approaching a realistic scenario

That's all I'm doing too. You said a vote against scrapping the gun registry wouldn't pass. Back that opinion up with facts.

Fact: The CPC has 125 seats in the current parliament.

Fact: The parliament has 308 seats.

Fact: A majority in the current parliament is 155+ votes.

Fact: 125 < 155

Fact: 155 - 125 = 30

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.

[MinorityReport]

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

You haven't proven this so it's not a fact.