"Friendly" NDP and Liberal MPs to help the Cons gut Canada's gun registry today

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

As a party the NDP has never supported any of the legislation. The Caucus has always been divided, back to when only a few of the present members were around Nor do I think there has ever been an attempt to pass a resolution at Convention. Not for lack of supporters, qualified or not. But it wouldn't have a hope in hell of passing.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

12 NDP MPs supported the private member's bill: Angus, Ashton, Bevington, Cullen, Hyer, Rafferty and who else?

KenS

As a party the NDP has never supported any of the legislation. The Caucus has always been divided, back to when only a few of the present members were around. Nor do I think there has ever been an attempt to pass a resolution at Convention. Not for lack of enough supporters to try. But it wouldn't have had a hope in hell of passing.

Debater

It's pretty disappointing that so many NDP MP's voted with the Conservatives, although a few Liberal MP's did too.

I saw Elaine Lumley, a mother whose son died as a result of gun violence in 2004, interviewed on CBC by Evan Solomon earlier.  She was very upset about the vote and with all the parties.  In particular though, she said she would never vote for the NDP or Jack Layton again.

I am still hoping that this Bill can be stopped before it is passes the next reading.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Whats your evidence its pandering Unionist?

Self-evident.

Quote:
Charlie Angus and Alex A. both said that despite their misgivings about how the issue has been used, they would vote against the bill. Don't get more rural than there ridings. And presumably there were others the same.

So, they're pandering for votes. What's complicated about this line of thought? They should say:

"The long gun registry is flawed, expensive, inadequate, doesn't take account of the needs of rural folks. But until such time as we pass a more effective method of controlling guns, we will leave this flawed system in place - because eliminating it would send the wrong signal. We will work without rest to control gun ownership and use far more strictly than ever before, and in the course of it will eliminate this wrong-headed registry - but during, not before."

If they can't pronounce those words, then fuck them for pandering to right-wing nutbars.

Quote:
The two whose feelings I know and voted for- are like me: they are completely opposed to the system and have always been clear about that.

I don't care how "clear" you are. What bothers me is how wrong you are. Guns kill. We understand that here in Québec. No one is taking guns away from rural folks. If they can't tolerate the registry, tough marbles.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, Debater, I saw that.  I also saw Duceppe say a BQ MP with H1N1 showed up to vote against the bill. The BQ are my heroes today. The BQ showed guts today, more than I can say for the Liberals and the NDP.Frown

Fidel

And I think that with a vote distorting electoral system at the root of party politicking in Canada today, we will see more distorted party views manifested as more or less the will of whichever government happens to be in phony minority power. Obviously this isn't all of the NDP's doing, or even all of the Liberal Party's doing. In this case, it's a conservative government with just 22% of registered voter support since a little over a year ago and knowing that voters don't want another election do-over or to hand any of them phony majority dictatorial powers.

Farmpunk

Unionist:

"So, they're pandering for votes. What's complicated about this line of thought? They should say:"The long gun registry is flawed, expensive, inadequate, doesn't take account of the needs of rural folks. But until such time as we pass a more effective method of controlling guns, we will leave this flawed system in place - because eliminating it would send the wrong signal. We will work without rest to control gun ownership and use far more strictly than ever before, and in the course of it will eliminate this wrong-headed registry - but during, not before."

If they can't pronounce those words, then fuck them for pandering to right-wing nutbars."

Or perhaps the people who put those NDPers into office outnumbered the people who would write such a sentence then complain about the lack of democratic representation of a particular political party.

Scrapping the restistry is dumb, I think.  Like a babbler said above: it's already in place.  I used it two weeks ago.  Very efficient compared to the early days.  What's the yearly operating cost for the registry?  I need to do a search but I think it's in the 20 million range...?

All firearms were tracked before the registry.  You bought a gun, they wrote down your name, etc.  There was already a record being kept.  Don't blame me that the office worker couldn't connect the dots without bilking a billion to set it up.

It's true that right wing nutbars pay attention to this issue.  And from this redneck's perspective I see a leader and his MPs doing their jobs.  The MPs reflect their communities, the leader respects the process.  The nutbars and are talking politics and influencing policy.... it's amazing to some.

ETA Having trouble with paragraph spacing and font.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
BQ MP with H1N1 showed up to vote against the bill.

 

OMG, that is too funny, on so many levels.

 

1. If people are concerned about h1n1 spreading they should not be going into the public and endangering peoples lives to vote on a Bill that is supposed to  save lives.

 

2.  Is Jason Kenney in the H1N1 target demographic?

 

3. Perhaps said Bloc MP breathed on Harper?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

He wore a mask. Normally when an MP is sick during a vote, a member of the party opposite also takes a leave during the vote, but the Cons refused to reciprocate today.

Erik Redburn

MUN Prof. wrote:

12 NDP MPs supported the private member's bill: Angus, Ashton, Bevington, Cullen, Hyer, Rafferty and who else?

 

That's a good question, does anyone here have a complete list of all the NDP members who supported this "private members" bill?

Debater

Boom Boom wrote:

Yeah, Debater, I saw that.  I also saw Duceppe say a BQ MP with H1N1 showed up to vote against the bill. The BQ are my heroes today. The BQ showed guts today, more than I can say for the Liberals and the NDP.Frown

Yes, I would agree the BQ came off best today on this issue.

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Debater wrote:

It's pretty disappointing that so many NDP MP's voted with the Conservatives, although a few Liberal MP's did too.

 

Yes "a few Liberal MP's did too", 8 of them. Four more MPs than the NDP. Shame on both houses.

 

It's notable that no one has used Caucus percentages at this point. We'll have to wait for that in tomorrow's Toronto Star.

Debater

MUN Prof. wrote:

Debater wrote:

It's pretty disappointing that so many NDP MP's voted with the Conservatives, although a few Liberal MP's did too.

 

Yes "a few Liberal MP's did too", 8 of them. Four more MPs than the NDP. Shame on both houses.

 

It's notable that no one has used Caucus percentages at this point. We'll have to wait for that in tomorrow's Toronto Star.

You have that reversed.  The NDP had more MP's vote with the Conservatives than the Liberals did.

Tommy_Paine

 

Those that are for this long gun registry, or gun control in general, should make a website encouraging and informing fellow left wingers the easiest, quickest and cheapest way to aquire a firearm.

That will be the best and most effective way to get the Conservatives  to see the light on gun control issues. 

And if not, it wouldn't hurt for us to be armed.

Unionist

MUN Prof. wrote:

 

Yes "a few Liberal MP's did too", 8 of them. Four more MPs than the NDP.

How is 8 four more than 12?

 

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Debater wrote:

You have that reversed. The NDP had more MP's vote with the Conservatives than the Liberals did.

My bad. Four less it is. Twelve to 8 for the long-guNDPers.

Anyone know who the NDs were?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I sold my Winchester long gun collection in 1989. I mostly used them for target practice with our local Rod and Gun Club at the OPP shooting range. My parents were members of Connaught Ranges near Ottawa when I was a child,  and I inherited their love of shooting as a sport. I sold my guns - it was an expensive collection - because I was concerned about them being stolen while I was often away on travels. I sold them to a collector who had a secure storage facility. Although my guns are long gone, I support the long gun registry.

Webgear

I found the system to be inadequate on a lot of different levels, many types of fire arms do not have to register, other types had to be register just because they look like an assault rifle.

They were no real standard, and forget about getting an heirloom weapons registered.

Did you know that the weapon used on December 6, 1989 is not even on the restricted list?

I think the firearms registry system needs to be recreated from scratch.

Debater

MUN Prof. wrote:

Debater wrote:

You have that reversed. The NDP had more MP's vote with the Conservatives than the Liberals did.

My bad. Four less it is. Twelve to 8 for the long-guNDPers.

It's okay - just wanted to make sure the correct information was being discussed.

What that does mean is that since the NDP has fewer MP's than the Liberals, and voted in larger number for the legislation, a much larger percentage of the NDP caucus supports the Bill compared to the Liberals.

12 out of 36 NDP MP's = 33%

8 out of 77 Liberal MP's = 10%

Therefore, the fact that one third of the NDP caucus voted for the bill is troubling.

E.Tamaran

Unionist wrote:

I don't care how "clear" you are. What bothers me is how wrong you are. Guns kill.  

I know it's from the NRA and all, but it's still true: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. (With guns/knives/clubs/fists/bombs/etc.)

A firearms licence, which this bill leaves intact, is more than adequate to control the legal acquision of long guns. Robust police work and intelligence will control, but not elimininate, the illegal trade in controlled firearms such as hand guns and machine guns (which are still legally required to be registered by their owners).   

Fidel

MUN Prof. wrote:

Debater wrote:

You have that reversed. The NDP had more MP's vote with the Conservatives than the Liberals did.

My bad. Four less it is. Twelve to 8 for the long-guNDPers.

Anyone know who the NDs were?

I believe Tony Martin supports the gun registry.

 

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Here's the list of "Opposition MPs who voted in favour of bringing the bill to committee for further study"

NDP MPs

Malcolm Allen (Welland)
Charlie Angus (Timmins - James Bay)
Niki Ashton (Churchill)
Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic)
Nathan Cullen (Skeena - Bulkley Valley)
Carol Hughes (Algoma - Manitoulin - Kapuskasing)
Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay - Superior North)
Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt)
Jim Maloway (Elmwood- Transcona)
John Rafferty (Thunder Bay - Rainy River)
Peter Stoffer (Sackville - Eastern Shore)
Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury)

LIBERAL MPS

Scott Andrews (Avalon)
Larry Bagnell (Yukon)
Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska - Restigouche)
Wayne Easter (Malpeque)
Keith Martin (Esquimalt - Juan De Fuca)
Anthony Rota (Nipissing - Timiskaming)
Todd Russell (Labrador)
Scott Simms (Bonavista - Gander - Grand Falls - Windsor)

INDEPENDENT MP

André Arthur (Portneuf - Jacques-Cartier)

Erik Redburn
Tommy_Paine

I'm really not sure I like the idea of my local police knowing whether I have a gun-- or not.   After all, don't law enforcement from your local Police Chief to the RCMP and CSIS try to turn the words "Civil Libertarian" into a pegorative?  

Maybe we should take away thier guns first.

We all want protection from the deranged assailant, but I'm not sure there's a short term legislative fix for that, and I believe even long term fixes won't eliminate all of them, forever.

 

 

Erik Redburn

MUN Prof. wrote:

Here's the list of "Opposition MPs who voted in favour of bringing the bill to committee for further study"

NDP MPs

Malcolm Allen (Welland)
Charlie Angus (Timmins - James Bay)
Niki Ashton (Churchill)
Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic)
Nathan Cullen (Skeena - Bulkley Valley)
Carol Hughes (Algoma - Manitoulin - Kapuskasing)
Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay - Superior North)
Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt)
Jim Maloway (Elmwood- Transcona)
John Rafferty (Thunder Bay - Rainy River)
Peter Stoffer (Sackville - Eastern Shore)
Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury)

LIBERAL MPS

Scott Andrews (Avalon)
Larry Bagnell (Yukon)
Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska - Restigouche)
Wayne Easter (Malpeque)
Keith Martin (Esquimalt - Juan De Fuca)
Anthony Rota (Nipissing - Timiskaming)
Todd Russell (Labrador)
Scott Simms (Bonavista - Gander - Grand Falls - Windsor)

INDEPENDENT MP

André Arthur (Portneuf - Jacques-Cartier)

 

Thank you.  All but three look like mostly rural ridings, so not a huge surprise.  I wonder if any of these members will show any populist bump next election.

Erik Redburn

Tommy_Paine wrote:

We all want protection from the deranged assailant, but I'm not sure there's a short term legislative fix for that, and I believe even long term fixes won't eliminate all of them, forever.

 

No, I'm pretty sure this won't eliminate the problem either Tommy, but forcing gun owners to register their weapons does have some advantages enforcement wise.

remind remind's picture

Talking parallel here, loretta....I agree there are no fees, nor do I believe money is going to be saved.

 

but  we spent hours on the phone with someone registering new guns, or selling others. So we  tax payers are paying the wages,  irrespective of whether there are fees, or not. And I think that is what ken meant.

 

 

Loretta

Remind, this was what I was responding to.

KenS wrote:

When long gun registry fees- which are not trivial if you have even a small collection- are paid for out of general tax reveues rather than by the gun owners... then come talk to me about whether the supposed benefits of registering long guns are worth the costs; whether there is anything other than people satisfied that they are "doing something," while costing them nothing; whether the billions could be spent in far most effective ways of reducing violence against women.

To which I replied that there are no fees to register long-guns so what is KenS goin' on about?

As others have said, abolishing the registry is not going to save masses of money and, in my opinion, this is another one of those issues where the right-wing is dishing out lies.

ETA a missing word from KenS' post.

 

Loretta

Isn't that interesting -- that's not how I read his post at all. I have fixed the error I made in quoting him...

Yes, we are paying the wages and I'm glad to do so.

Stockholm

There is a simple reason why there were more NDP MPs supporting the measure than Liberals. This is almost entirely an issue that splits people along urban/rural lines. The NDP caucus is actually a lot more rural than people realize with so many members from northern Ontario and from various other northern and remote ridings. The Liberals on the other hand have already been almost annhilated outside of the GTA, non-francophone Montreal and a few other urban pockets. They literally have almost no MPs left that aren't from totally urban ridings the few Liberals who are from rural ridings almost all voted for the bill - all eight of them!

I don't know what people mean about Duceppe having any "guts". He has nothing to lose on this issue, there is virtually no grassroots movement against the gun registry in Quebec, his MPs get no pressure of any kind to support the bill - so for him its the easiest decision in the world.

Fidel

Loretta wrote:

Remind, this was what I was responding to.

KenS wrote:

When long gun registry fees- which are not trivial if you have even a small collection- are paid for out of general tax reveues rather than by the gun owners... then come talk to me about whether the supposed benefits of registering long guns are worth the costs; whether there is anything other than people satisfied that they are "doing something," while costing them nothing; whether the billions could be spent in far most effective ways of reducing violence against women.

To which I replied that there are no fees to register long-guns so what is KenS goin' on about?

As others have said, abolishing the registry is not going to save masses of money and, in my opinion, this is another one of those issues where the right-wing is dishing out lies.

ETA a missing word from KenS' post.

They're trying to create divisiveness between Northern and rural voters and the NDP. It's Yankee style dirty politicking, and that should be some indication of where Steve Harper and his ReformaTories want to take the country.

Loretta

I agree, Fidel and no doubt the same folks (NRA anyone?) are involved.

remind remind's picture

I am rural voter..... know it has kept guns out of the hands of one whack here in town.

 

But yet, I sometimes feel like Tommy.....

melovesproles

Quote:
This is almost entirely an issue that splits people along urban/rural lines.

I'm in a rural riding and know lots of gun owners who think all the hot air about how draconian the gun registry is just that.  It's irresponsible not to register your rifle and I'm dissapointed in Cullen and Angus.  Just as with the death of the coalition the chest beaters score another victory against reason by being the angriest and most intimidating.

Wilf Day

Quebec’s national assembly unanimously passed a motion urging Ottawa to preserve the national firearms registry.

Rural opposition MPs mostly voted for repeal?

Except in Quebec.

This doesn't add up.

MPs who voted against the gun registry:

Here is a list of opposition MPs who voted to scrap gun registry:

NDP:

Niki Ashton (Churchill, Man.)

Charlie Angus (Timmins, Ont.)

Malcolm Allen (Welland, Ont.)

John Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River, Ont.)

Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, N.S.)

Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic)

Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.)

Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.)

Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, Ont.)

Jim Maloway (Elmwood-Transcona, Man.)

Carol Hughes (Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, Ont.)

Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, Ont.)  

Liberal:

Wayne Easter (Malpeque, P.E.I.)

Jean-Claude D’Amours (Madawaska-Restigouche, N.B.)

Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, B.C.)

Scott Simms (Grand Falls, N.L.)

Todd Russell (Labrador, N.L.)

Larry Bagnell (Yukon)

Anthony Rota (Nipissing-Timiskaming, Ont.)

Scott Andrews (Avalon, N.L.)

Bloc: zero

Rural anglophone Canada, plus the NDP MPs from Elmwood-Transcona (Winnipeg), Sackville-Eastern Shore (Halifax), Welland, and Sudbury, and the Liberal MP from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Victoria).

Two solitudes?

martin dufresne

Stockholm: He (Duceppe) has nothing to lose on this issue, there is virtually no grassroots movement against the gun registry in Quebec, his MPs get no pressure of any kind to support the bill - so for him its the easiest decision in the world.

This is false. The real reason why the Bloc could stand up to pressures from anti-registration rural (and urban) Quebecers is that it is a progressive party with a radical mission, and Quebec right-wingers are voting for the Grits or the Cons, so have less of a grip on Duceppe.

 

ReeferMadness

I understand people's frustration over the excessive cost of producing the registry but that's just about all I understand.

For example, I don't understand the visceral opposition to registering long guns.  We don't have huge discontent and massive civil disobedience when it comes to registering automobiles.  I don't understand the paranoia.  Do people really believe that Grandpa's .22 is all that's preventing the government from taking over?  I don't understand the NRA mentality or why it is so prevalent in Canada.  Statements like "Criminals won't register their guns so this only penalizes honest people" are based on a pervasive myth that you can neatly divide the population up into "criminals" (understood to the career criminals) and "law-abiding people".  And I don't understand how they could have sunk $2 billion into what I see as a relatively simple registration exercise.

 

Unionist

ReeferMadness wrote:

For example, I don't understand the visceral opposition to registering long guns.

Have you seen ordinary people in the U.S. rioting against universal health care? I have. And I don't understand that either.

 

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
What's complicated about this line of thought? They should say: "The long gun registry is flawed, expensive, inadequate, doesn't take account of the needs of rural folks. But until such time as we pass a more effective method of controlling guns, we will leave this flawed system in place - because eliminating it would send the wrong signal. We will work without rest to control gun ownership and use far more strictly than ever before, and in the course of it will eliminate this wrong-headed registry - but during, not before."

. . . Guns kill. We understand that here in Québec. No one is taking guns away from rural folks. If they can't tolerate the registry, tough marbles.

Well said.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

This is an issue important to me, and I feel let down by the NDP - and I took out a membership in this party last month, the first time I've ever paid membership into a political party. ~sigh~ Frown 

Webgear

Unionist wrote:

 We understand that here in Québec. No one is taking guns away from rural folks. If they can't tolerate the registry, tough marbles.

Have you not stated in the past the you want to take guns aways from people?

yarg

"I don't care how "clear" you are. What bothers me is how wrong you are. Guns kill."

 

This is all you need to know about most anti gun people, no sense, no logic, no thought, just emotion.

If all of the money that was spent on the registry had been spent on healthcare we could have saved the lives of thousands, instead we saved none, makes perfect sense to some of you it seems.

How many other things kill? More people are killed every year by drunk drivers than by firearms, why isn't there an outcry to ban alcohol from the left?  Nope instead we focus on the group of people that uses an object, firearms, more safely than any other group in the country.  Where is the outcry against gangs and crime in general, nope, it's the evil white folks keeping those people down, can't be their fault, don't want to talk about that, and lets give them light sentences while were at it, that will surely help.

Someone else mentioned the grief of a mother and how disapointed she was, sure I can understand that, she's wrongly convinced that the registry would have prevented her childs death, it is terrible how some groups have perverted these peoples grief into a political charade with no real power to prevent crime.  I don't believe we should govern a country based upon lies and misinformation perpetuated by lobby groups that at one time were paid by the liberal government to lobby the same liberal government for gun control. Im sure you have all heard the lie that the registry is acessed over 9000 times a day, that is a complete lie, the actual registry specific requests per day is about 20, but the registry is connected to every other query the police make so it gets checked every time the police check anything.  So from 9000 to 20, this is the honesty level of the people some of you blindly follow, and it goes on and on and on.

It isn't difficult to refute these emotional arguments and obvious lies, but after 13 years it is getting old, you are nothing if not persistent.

 

ReeferMadness

This just in:

Quote:

While it has its critics within law-enforcement, it has received strong support from the police chiefs of Canada's biggest cities and the country's biggest police association.

Quote:
The head of Montreal's police brotherhood eagerly waded into the debate as politicians voted in favour of killing the registry Wednesday. He said the registry has become an essential part of policing.

Yves Francoeur cited how officers seized two registered firearms from the home of a man as he was arrested earlier this year for allegedly assaulting his wife.

Useless or Vital: Cops wade into emotional gun registry debate

 

 

 

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 We understand that here in Québec. No one is taking guns away from rural folks. If they can't tolerate the registry, tough marbles.

Have you not stated in the past the you want to take guns aways from people?

Never. I have in the past floated the idea of eliminating individual ownership, storage, and sale of firearms, to be replaced by single-owner rental, and also the notion of no firearms within a certain radius of any large municipal centre with certain sport-shooting exceptions - all including exceptions for FN and anyone who has a hereditary or similar entrenched right. USE of firearms would certainly not be prohibited, because there are legitimate hunting and sports uses. There are no other legitimate uses for individual citizens (such as "collecting" or "self-defence" or other diseased notions).

Why do you ask, Webgear?

In particular, what does Unionist's pet theory have to do with how these cowardly assholes called "Liberals" and "NDP" put their hands up in favour of some Charlton Heston NRA joke statute?? That's the issue under discussion here.

melovesproles

Quote:
How many other things kill? More people are killed every year by drunk drivers than by firearms, why isn't there an outcry to ban alcohol from the left?

Uhh, people do have to register their vehicles, alcohol is regulated by the government, and the government takes a strong punitive stance against mixing the two.  Have you been living under a rock?

If I lived in Quebec I just don't see how I couldn't vote for the Bloc, their positions on crime and justice are consistantly better than the NDP's.  I wish we had that kind of a viable option out here in BC.

Webgear

 

Unionist

Ok, I miss understood or forgot about your intent. 

"anyone who has a hereditary or similar entrenched right"

What do you mean by this, can you provide some examples?

Thanks

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
how the BQ supported extending Canada's commitment of troops in Afghanistan

Correct - that's still their shameless toadying position, despite the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers hating the "mission"...

Quote:
when the NDP wanted to bring the troops home immediately

... well, that position comes and goes - it was sabotaged from the day after Québec 2006 by Dawn Black and her ilk, and ultimately Layton, but still looked mildly better than the Bloc's toadying...

Quote:
... or how the BQ voted down a motion to raise the federal minimum wage to $10....

Yeah, because the BQ strenuously opposes Ottawa setting labour standards for Québec - not a problem in my book, given that Québec's labour laws are light years ahead of the Canada Labour Code or those of any other province - so please tell the whole story.

Quote:
I also recall how Duceppe turned a blind eye to SEVEN BQ MPs voting to scrap same sex marriage and they had no sanctions for their vote of hate whatsoever.

Not sure what you're talking about, but if that happened (you must keep a diary...), it is shameful and should be condemned.

Quote:
... the BQ can and often is as unprincipled and opportunistic as anyone else

You mean, "as the NDP" - yes, quite right. The problem is that you have no problem lashing out at others, but are viscerally and morally incapable of doing so when your own party commits abject betrayal - as they have done on crime and gun issues (and others) especially since Layton unilaterally altered party policy in January 2006. It's easy to attack others. How about checking the beam in your own eye? Takes nerve and a steady hand.

 

Stockholm

"This is false. The real reason why the Bloc could stand up to pressures from anti-registration rural (and urban) Quebecers is that it is a progressive party with a radical mission, and Quebec right-wingers are voting for the Grits or the Cons, so have less of a grip on Duceppe."

Oh really??? why don't you tell us how the it fit in with the BQ's "radical mission" when they supported the Harper government for the entire first year they were in power or how the BQ supported extending Canada's commitment of troops in Afghanistan when the NDP wanted to bring the troops home immediately or how the BQ voted down a motion to raise the federal minimum wage to $10. I also recall how Duceppe turned a blind eye to SEVEN BQ MPs voting to scrap same sex marriage and they faced no sanctions of any kind for their vote of hate. So don't give me any of that sanctimonious crap - the BQ can and often is as unprincipled and opportunistic as anyone else - it so happens that today, Duceppe thinks its good politics to whip his members on this particular issue - tomorrow, if he thinks it advances the cause of Quebec independence to adopt a rightwing position - he'll do that as well.

I also note that Pierre Brien who was once in the BQ, but who then ran provincially for the neo-fascist ADQ and then had a stint as Harper's chief Quebec organizer has now been welcomed back into the BQ fold with open arms. If there is room in the BQ tent for a neo-fascist like Brien, then obviously the BQ is far less then perfectly progressive, nor is it on a "radical mission" ...and let's not even get into them running a rightwing privatization enthusiast and union-buster like Paille in Hochelaga - which is a total insult to people living in a such a poor working class riding with such a radical tradition.

The BQ was founded by Lucien Bouchard and a bunch of ex-Tory MPs and sometimes the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Erik Redburn

yarg wrote:

"I don't care how "clear" you are. What bothers me is how wrong you are. Guns kill."

 

This is all you need to know about most anti gun people, no sense, no logic, no thought, just emotion.

 

In keeping with Babble's new "be nice" policy I'll just say that that's a bit of an insult to everyone who disagrees with you.

 

Quote:

If all of the money that was spent on the registry had been spent on healthcare we could have saved the lives of thousands, instead we saved none, makes perfect sense to some of you it seems.

 

Do the neo-Cons support expanding universal healthcare, do most gun nuts?  I didn't see much sign of that Down South, where all bad ideas seem to begin nowadays.

 

Quote:

How many other things kill? More people are killed every year by drunk drivers than by firearms, why isn't there an outcry to ban alcohol from the left? 

 

Because banning alcohol has been proven not to work, except for gangsters, and most grownups can still get a bit tipsy without harming their neighbours.  We do have laws regulating the use of alcohol however which is what this registry is about, not outright "banning".

 

Quote:

Nope instead we focus on the group of people that uses an object, firearms, more safely than any other group in the country.  Where is the outcry against gangs and crime in general, nope, it's the evil white folks keeping those people down, can't be their fault, don't want to talk about that, and lets give them light sentences while were at it, that will surely help.

I don't like that statement much, care to explain to us "loony leftists" what you mean by it?

 

Quote:

It isn't difficult to refute these emotional arguments and obvious lies, but after 13 years it is getting old...

 

Yep, it sure is.

Pages