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

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

Our fearless leader and Bloc head sound like a couple sleazy politicians for sure, Stockholm.

Stockholm

When the equal marriage bill was passed in June 2005, it was a supposedly free vote - though the entire Tory caucus as a recall voted NO, 38 Liberals and 7 BQ MPs voted no and 1 New Democrat voted NO. Only the NDP disciplined anyone for voting NO and as we all know she was subsequently defeated for the nomination and left caucus. As far as i know, the seven homophobes in the BQ caucus are all still members in good standing and have never faced any consequences whatsoever for their vote.

With regard to the gun registry, I'm an agnostic. In theory I support "gun control" but I also recognize that the gun registry is a bit of a money wasting joke esp, since provincial government in 4 provinces have refused to enforce it from the start. There has never been an explicit NDP policy on the gun registry in the first place - so I'm not sure what "principle" you think the NDP s undermining by letting its MPs vote freely on this issue. Layton has expressed his personal views on the issue and that is reflected in his personal voting record on the issue. YOu can agree or disagree with the stance that some rural NDP MPs are taking on this issue - but I don't think its fair to accuse them of "pandering" or of being "unprincipled". They may have principles which are not 100% identical to yours. I've met a lot of very staunch dyed in the wool NDPers (including some MPs) who genuinely, honestly believe that the gun registry is bad public policy and they are voting in keeping with their own principles. Disagree with them if you wish, but don't question their integrity or their motives unless you have proof.

Fidel

Yes, I also find it hard to tell which of the two old line party policies are worse. We have US-friendly conservatives on the one hand and crooked Liberals on the other. And neither can be trusted to run a lemonade stand unfortunately.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
I'm not sure what "principle" you think the NDP s undermining by letting its MPs vote freely on this issue.

Principle? Big word. Layton is a coward on this issue, just as he was a strongarm hero when it came to whipping his caucus to support Harper's crime bill, and disciplining Siksay for voting his conscience. There is no principle, no consistency, no leadership. There is nothing but pandering. And I'm not questioning the "motives" of the 12 MPs. I called them pandering assholes. You are free to disagree with that obvious truth. Listen to Charlie Angus's interview if you can catch it on TV (saw him on the National). And he's one of the decent ones. Shame.

ETA: Sorry, I wasn't finished ranting. These assholes of all parties (except in this case the BQ) committed this treachery one month before the 20th anniversary of the Polytechnique massacre. They should be put on display somewhere, with appropriate museum labels explaining to schoolchildren what kind of "elected representatives" they are. Disgraceful.

 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Yes, I also find it hard to tell which of the two old line party policies are worse. We have US-friendly conservatives on the one hand and crooked Liberals on the other. And neither can be trusted to run a lemonade stand unfortunately.

Instead of yanking out your ready-made platitudes, you could deign to comment on the issue, if you have taken the trouble to inform yourself by reviewing the thread title, that is.

 

Stockholm

What's your definition of "pandering"? Is Duceppe not also "pandering" to people with another position on the issue? or is it only pandering when its a position you personally don't agree with.

I tend to see "pandering" as being when you take a position that you don't actually believe in at all - just in order to get votes. I see no evidence that any of the MPs voting to scrap the long gun registry are not sincere in their opposition to it.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Yes, I also find it hard to tell which of the two old line party policies are worse. We have US-friendly conservatives on the one hand and crooked Liberals on the other. And neither can be trusted to run a lemonade stand unfortunately.

Instead of yanking out your ready-made platitudes, you could deign to comment on the issue, if you have taken the trouble to inform yourself by reviewing the thread title, that is.

Well there are parts of the gun registry that were implemented quite badly. I am with some NDPers who voted for scrapping the registry. And at the same time, I can certainly understand the NDP MP's views and who are for stricter gun control and yet still have reservations about the Liberals' gun registry. Is it not possible to be critical of both old line parties for their slip-shod legislation when in government? I'm sorry but I'd have to hold my nose either way on this one.

Unionist

Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!

The NDP votes two different ways on the bill - and so does Fidel!!!!

[Unionist is awed, though not shocked.]

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

What's your definition of "pandering"?

Jack Layton - by taking the coward's way out.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!

The NDP votes two different ways on the bill - and so does Fidel!!!!

[Unionist is awed, though not shocked.]

Do all Canadians agree with you? I thought we were living in a democracy where 22% of registered voters choose the government?

Maybe you could explain why your personal views on the gun registry should be considered over and above those of millions of other Canadians who think the Liberal gun registry stinks? Or perhaps there are those of us who believe in the need for a gun registry but think both old line parties' gun legislation leaves something to be desired. Why is everything always a black and white issue with conservatives?

Webgear

Fidel wrote:

Well there are parts of the gun registry that were implemented quite badly. 

I would review post 69.

Unionist

Fidel, if you bothered to read the thread (you didn't), you'd realize that I consider the registry to be wrongheaded, stupid, etc. I also consider the push to eliminate it by the Harpocons to be evil. And I also consider Layton to be a coward for not even leading his party to take a position on the issue of gun control.

"Black and white" enough for you?

 

Fidel

So whenever you're finished with your hysterical postings, maybe you could tell us how you yourself would have voted and why? And this vote has nothing to do with proposed legislation from the NDP. The NDP will have a chance to vote on amendments to the bill. And our glorious "red" chamberers can always work their magic in shadow government to impose the will of the large majority of Canadians and all. I wouldnt hold my breath though.

bekayne

Stockholm wrote:

Its worth noting that the NDP has actually NEVER supported the Liberal gun registry in the first place. When it first was brought in in the mid-90s, Svend Robinson was the only NDP MP who voted for it - all the others voted no.

And Svend Robinson's seat is the only one the NDP still has

Fidel

Webgear wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Well there are parts of the gun registry that were implemented quite badly. 

I would review post 69.

And that reminds me. There were some of us arguing some weeks ago that cops at a London university campus used excessive force in taking down a young man who was somewhat out of control at the time and menacing other students. And yes, I have personal stories about heirloom weapons and gaping security holes in the gun registry as well. I don't like either the Liberal or Tory party positions on guns in Canada. They need cleaning out of Ottawa and real leaders elected.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

When the equal marriage bill was passed in June 2005, it was a supposedly free vote - though the entire Tory caucus as a recall voted NO, 38 Liberals and 7 BQ MPs voted no and 1 New Democrat voted NO. Only the NDP disciplined anyone for voting NO and as we all know she was subsequently defeated for the nomination and left caucus. As far as i know, the seven homophobes in the BQ caucus are all still members in good standing and have never faced any consequences whatsoever for their vote.

There were actually about 3 or 4 Conservatives who voted in favour of same-sex marriage:

Belinda Stronach

James Moore

Gerald Keddy

And there may be one more that I am forgetting.

 

But yes, there were about 5 BQ MP's that voted against same-sex marriage, although I think most of them are no longer in Parliament.

NorthReport

I support the gun registry, and I thought the police did as well.

 

Is it my imagination, or are our police forces now being silent on this issue? What gives?

Webgear

Fidel, you lost me. What does post 116 have to do with post 69?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

So whenever you're finished with your hysterical postings, maybe you could tell us how you yourself would have voted and why?

I would have voted "no", because we need more strict gun control, not less - and I would have worked for better legislation before sending the wrong message by siding with the cowboys.

Quote:
And this vote has nothing to do with proposed legislation from the NDP.

The NDP has no position on gun control. That's why they flail around when the real crooks get into gear. Shame on Layton.

Quote:
The NDP will have a chance to vote on amendments to the bill.

Bad joke, Fidel. Kid yourself, but not others.

Quote:
And our glorious "red" chamberers can always work their magic in shadow government to impose the will of the large majority of Canadians and all. I wouldnt hold my breath though.

The Senate, of course, will take a far more progressive stance, because you can't get any more subhuman than what the House is doing on crime and firearm issues. A few decent voices will speak out. In the House, even when there's a "free" vote (what an obscene abuse of the noble word "free"), not one stirring oration is forthcoming from even the people who vote the right way. That's the corrupt travesty that the Commons has become.

 

Fidel

Webgear wrote:

Fidel, you lost me. What does post 116 have to do with post 69?

I live in Northern Ontario. Lots of us think the Liberals gun registry stinks. There are tourist operators who make a living with long rifles and guiding. My family has a history of trapping and hunting, and my two brothers and I all think the registry is a pain in the ass now that long rifles are included.

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

I support the gun registry, and I thought the police did as well.

 

Is it my imagination, or are our police forces now being silent on this issue? What gives?

They have not been silent.  The Toronto and Montreal police chiefs spoke in favour of the registry this week.  The Toronto Police Chief did an interview with Evan Solomon on CBC over the past week.

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

Is it my imagination, or are our police forces now being silent on this issue? What gives?

It's your imagination. Turn on the TV or radio or check Google. [url=Here">http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/10/29/11562036-sun.htm... is one of dozens.[/url]

a lonely worker

Interesting that my question about why cars should be registered but firearms should not be registered never gets answered from the NRA crowd.

All what Ken could say is that he was "tired" of answering it.

 

Today 5 very clear problems occurred in this vote:

 

1 - The NRA influence and Americanisation of our politics continues in Canada.

 

2 - Despite that a majority of Canadians live in urban centres, our FPTP system gives rural voters effective control over our country.

 

3 - The BQ showed principled leadership today in spite that the gun registry is not universally loved in their rural areas.

 

4 - All the other parties showed crass pandering. This is especially troubling with the NDP who are becoming worse than Liberals on American crime and punishment bills like this.

 

5 - The best example of this pandering can be seen by the refusal of the Cons, Libs and NDP gun lovers who were so keen to be seen standing up for the right to bear arms, that NOT one of them offered to pair their yes vote with the sick BQ MP's "non" vote.

 

I am seriously begining to wonder why I support this "new" Democratic Party of USA North.

 

Webgear

The weapon used on December 6, 1989 is not even on the restricted list?

 

How fuck up is that?

NDPP

You're a real good soldier Fidel loyal to the bitter end - they don't deserve you these wet wick here today gone tomorrow NDP hustlers. But on the bright side, we may need our bangbangs in future and not necessarily wish the PTB to know about them either. Gun control might also mean being able to hit your target...

Fidel

Webgear wrote:

The weapon used on December 6, 1989 is not even on the restricted list? How fuck up is that?

Things like that don't matter when the NDP's in their crosshairs.

a lonely worker

Fidel wrote:

Things like that don't matter when the NDP's in their crosshairs.

 

The NDP put themselves in the "crosshairs"!

 

Notice the BQ aren't in the "crosshairs" today? Duceppe showed us leadership today.

 

Too bad no one could say the same about Layton.

a lonely worker

Fidel wrote:

My family has a history of trapping and hunting, and my two brothers and I all think the registry is a pain in the ass now that long rifles are included.

 

Is registering your vehicles a "pain in the ass" too? Should this be the next registry to go?

Debater

Jack Layton is the most opportunistic leader the NDP has ever had.  I don't think he will have as great a place in Canadian history as Ed Broadbent.  Ed is enormously well-respected today by most Canadians because he had ethics and principles and didn't sacrifice them.

Fidel

a lonely worker wrote:

Fidel wrote:

My family has a history of trapping and hunting, and my two brothers and I all think the registry is a pain in the ass now that long rifles are included.

Is registering your vehicles a "pain in the ass" too? Should this be the next registry to go?

Maybe you should hop a plane and head up to the arctic. And ask Inuit Rangers how  they feel about having to register rifles they've used all their lives to feed their families. And then the RCMP come and confiscate rifles from them when someone dies?

I liked our crooked Liberals when they were in power for 12 years. I really did. They did everything perfect for twelve long years except for this stupid gun registry. I didn't actually mind them selling our environment to Exxon-Imperial and friends, but I really do think they botched the gun registry just a little.

And they can have my dad's army rifle, and maybe even the pistol he picked up in North Africa during WW II, the same momentos he gave me and brother before he died. They told dad he had to leave his rifle in Holland on the way home, but he'd been through so much blood and gore that he just plain forgot to comply way back in '45. And they'll have to pry them from our cold dead hands.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

So whenever you're finished with your hysterical postings, maybe you could tell us how you yourself would have voted and why?

I would have voted "no", because we need more strict gun control, not less - and I would have worked for better legislation before sending the wrong message by siding with the cowboys.

But it's okay for Taliban and related groups to run around Central Asia carrying leftover weapons from the the cold war supplied by Brits and Yanks? What would former CIA point man in the Stan, mullah Omar, or even switch hitter Abdullah Rocketi say about it? How do you spell hypocrisy?

We'll see if the NDP can amend this bad legislation to amend previous bad Liberal legislation for what amounted to no soup to you Liberal gun control.

Fidel wrote:
And this vote has nothing to do with proposed legislation from the NDP.

Unionist wrote:
The NDP has no position on gun control. That's why they flail around when the real crooks get into gear. Shame on Layton.

You mean like when the Libranos were taking care of things? Bre-X? Conrad Black? Earl Jones? Is Canada viewed as a transparent and accountable democracy according to UN and OECD reports recently, U?

Maybe you don't think there should be [url=http://www.ndp.ca/platform/otherpriorities/safeneighbourhoods]mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed using handguns[/url], but Layton and the NDP do.

And maybe our "red" senators will eventually decide to take some position or another on the matter well after our democratically elected politicians decide in favour of ten attorney generals from across Canada. But we know ahead of time that Liberal senators will lay down for Steve Harper's conservatives if the price is right.

KenS

a lonely worker wrote:

Interesting that my question about why cars should be registered but firearms should not be registered never gets answered from the NRA crowd.

All what Ken could say is that he was "tired" of answering it.

Did you address of my point tht I dont oppose the principle of long gun registry, that the objection is against this registry that is not just flawed, that there is not evidence it will do what is expected, that there is a glib disdain about who pays for it?

Why I should I discuss an allegorical comparison?

Farmpunk

A Lonely Worker:

 

"2 - Despite that a majority of Canadians live in urban centres, our FPTP system gives rural voters effective control over our country."

 

This idea has been debunked on babble before. Need we do it again? And I suppose the fact that there are significant differences between rural and urban Canadians, cultural, economic and otherwise.... means that the rural folks shouldn't be able to influence policy that affects them by putting people into parliament who will actually reflect their political wishes?

 

If Layton had urged NDP MPs to vote in favour of keeping the registry, would we be having a discussion on how a leader is quashing local concerns of MPs?

 

Glad to see the babble double standars is alive and well. I'm a nutbar, apparently, a cowboy, an NRA humping rural bumpkin who probably shouldn't bother voicing his opinion.

Stockholm

I'm suspect Layton probably did "urge" NDP MPs to vote in favour of keeping the registry. I think the issue is whether he should have gone further and FORCED them to do so and threatened them all with expulsion from the party if they didn't. I'm glad he didn't do that.

Unionist

Farmpunk wrote:

If Layton had urged NDP MPs to vote in favour of keeping the registry, would we be having a discussion on how a leader is quashing local concerns of MPs?

Of course not, because Layton, as a strong and compassionate leader, would have explained the overarching goal of reducing firearm crime and violence, and the need not to allow the Conservatives to lurch to the opposite direction, and therefore the need to tolerate the registry until better legislation and crime (and accident) prevention methodologies can be implemented.

You can't please everyone, though - and if "local concerns" include (say, hypothetically) uncontrolled access to firearms, then naturally the NDP will have to tell those locals, "vote for someone else, please". Fortunately, that's only a tiny minority of Canadians.

Quote:
Glad to see the babble double standars is alive and well. I'm a nutbar, apparently, a cowboy, an NRA humping rural bumpkin who probably shouldn't bother voicing his opinion.

Wow, who called you that? Who even knows what your views are on gun control? Maybe engage in the discussion before feeling you've been attacked. Do you support Hoeppner's bill?

 

Farmpunk

Hey, I'm not on your ignore list, dude. 

Read post #57.  I thought I was fairly clear there. 

Not saying I've been personally bashed.  But when you call people right-wing nutbars because they own firearms, don't agree with the registry, and have political representatives that actually listen to these concerns and take them to Ottowa in a free vote... I get a little testy.  Am I a right wing nutbar?  My self diagnosis says no but I'm open to independent analysis.

Farmpunk

Double post deleted.

Unionist

Farmpunk: I'm sorry, I totally missed your post #57 - and I agree with a good chunk of what you said - except that I don't appreciate NDP MPs "listening" to constituents about the registry without looking at the national scene and pronouncing on the full problem. And I abhor a leader's relinquishing of responsibility to put forward a policy statement after trying to achieve a caucus (never mind convention) consensus - even if on occasion he allows a free vote. That's cowardice.

Again, my apologies for missing your response.

Farmpunk

Fair enough.

Ghislaine

Say what you will about us rural folks, but Wayne Easter will be a popular man today in this riding. MPs should respect their constituents.

Why do people keep bringing up the Montreal massacre? The gun used in that event is not covered under this registry. This bill also does not affect licensing of guns - which is where it is determined whether someone is competent to own a firearm.

Based on the letters that the Montreal Massacre perp. wrote, he was a hateful, misogynist ass who would have committed violence against women whether it was with a gun, his hands, a knife, etc. If he hadn't have killed himself, he probably would have been out in another five years anyways. Any NDP attempts to vote on measures to make a life sentences really mean a life sentence would have been also called pandering and unprincipled here.

George Victor

No, yer sound as a bell, Fp.   It's that reaction to the thinking of people and their squirrel rifles that you warned me about (Deer Hunting With Jesus) that's taken it over the top, hyperbole rules. Steam being let off, and little hobby horses out of their stable.

The PQ had to whip members into line on this because the strongest voice for gun registry came out of Quebec following the slaughter of young women  at their university.  It has been parlayed in this thread into a male thing - not the product of too much violence in their "entertainment" world, neuroses developing into full-blown psychosis - and a political thing.

So, of course, Charlie Angus, who regualarly establishes a new template for exactly how an MP should represent the people of a northern riding, becomes just another sellout - there must be no deviation from this old testament view of a society that can also produce the mental illness of the mass murderer.  Some folks here would go awfully hungry in the north woods, unlesss they have exceptional fishing skills - and great at ice fishing.  It would be good to see a rational viewpoint from psychology.

 

Webgear

Farmpubk

 

Of course you are a nutbar, apparently, a cowboy, an NRA humping rural bumpkin who probably shouldn't bother voicing his opinion.

You live on a farm outside the city, you live north of Hwy 9. You should not have any rights. Get with the program, your a county bumpkin, listen to the great people from the city. They hold all knowledge.

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Say what you will about us rural folks, but Wayne Easter will be a popular man today in this riding.

Well that's what counts.

Quote:
MPs should respect their constituents.

They should exchange views and learn from each other - not be a mirror for the most backward ideas. Did MPs wait for constituents to demand same-sex marriage?

Quote:
Why do people keep bringing up the Montreal massacre?

I could mention all the other gun massacres that have taken place within a few minutes drive of my home if you like (Dawson, Fabrikant...) - and this is a very safe city compared to Toronto or Winnipeg or Vancouver.

Quote:
The gun used in that event is not covered under this registry.

What an odd comment. Guns of every single description should be strictly controlled - in draconian fashion - because they have no known purpose except to maim and kill.

Quote:
Any NDP attempts to vote on measures to make a life sentences really mean a life sentence would have been also called pandering and unprincipled here.

Sure - if murder and misogyny were some inborn genetic tendency present in a finite percentage of the population, we could just find them, lock them up forever - or better yet, euthanize them - and with each capture, the problem would be reduced. And, the rest of the population would be intimidated into behaving nicely.

If that's your view of society, then I want to be on a different discussion board from you. Have you never understood that harsh punishment and long imprisonment does not reduce crime rates?

We have the ultra-right Conservative party to reflect ideas like these. Who the hell needs an NDP which does the same?

And by the way, the only reason Harper doesn't have a majority today is because Duceppe skillfully played against Harper's harsh crime platform. If rural folks need tougher crime rules - they should definitely, immediately, vote for Harper. I wouldn't except such votes if they were delivered to the riding office on a silver platter. But I don't happen to believe that rural folks are immune to discussion, reason, and logic.

George Victor

Discussion, reason and logic...and some understanding of Wilf's "two solitudes" offering (oh, and some concern for society's lack of concern and provision of help for the mentally ill.  Absolutely antediluvian at the moment.)

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist wrote:

Fidel, if you bothered to read the thread (you didn't), you'd realize that I consider the registry to be wrongheaded, stupid, etc. I also consider the push to eliminate it by the Harpocons to be evil. And I also consider Layton to be a coward for not even leading his party to take a position on the issue of gun control.

"Black and white" enough for you?

 

The gun registry is not gun control.  This misunderstanding is where the breakdown and urban/rural split begins. 

I am willing to bet a significant number of those supporting the registery have never registered a long gun.  I have.  Comparing it to registering a vehicle demostrates a complete ignorance of the reality.  It is far more intrusive, far more bureacratic and the cops on the beat I know, not the leadership, tell me it is next to useless for them, because they already assume there is a weapon there.  Thinking you can trust a computer is a quick trip to the hospital or worse is how one friend put it.

I think the real problem is that those on both sides of the 'issue' are really talking about totally seperate issues - but like many other issues, they just can't hear the legitimate concerns of the other side.  I have no problem with gun control - the banning or restrictions of certain types of weapons and penalties for the misuse of any weapon.  However, the registry is not that - it is something completely different. 

I have no problem with a free vote, because those MPs from mostly rural ridings outside Quebec are voting on a different issue than those from urban areas are voting on.  Both are right, because we can't seem to get across to each other that a registry and protecting people from gun crime are in the end really not related.

oldgoat

Closing for length.  Feel free to start anew.

Pages