Wednesday, September 22, 2010

How Many Votes Will it Take to Get Rid of the Long-Gun Registry?

Can Conservatives, whether they're uninformed followers or members outside of cabinet please go on the record of saying how many more votes will they waste in trying to scrap the long gun registry?

Considering a democratic vote was held, the long gun registry was saved, and the Conservative Party lost, Stephen Harper still vows that eventually the long gun registry will be abolished. So what I want is every Conservative to say right now how many more votes will it have to take for them to accept a democratic outcome. Two? Four? The number that comes after four?

If Conservatives don't like the outcome of a vote, tough. Majority rules. A majority of Canadians want the long gun registry, a majority of Police organizations AND police officers want the long gun registry, and today it is clear, a majority of MPs want the long gun registry. What other majority will it take for Conservatives to keep the long gun registry?

And as Conservatives ignore this Parliamentary majority that saved the long gun registry, perhaps it's clear there's only one majority the Conservatives will recognize and that's they're own.

Lucky for police that's one majority we won't see.

19 comments:

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Intfan, your comment was deleted after the exact same comment was seen on various other sites.

You can say whatever you want, but don't spam.

The Rat said...

As many as it takes. Being correct doesn't require a majority, it only takes one.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

That's not a ridiculous position. So even if a 1000 votes are wasted and everytime the long gun registry is saved, you'd still want anoter vote? That's not democracy, that's ignoring democracy.

Being correct only takes one majority vote? Which majority vote? The one we just had?

If majority votes don't matter, what does? Maybe we should change our constitution to make sure only votes of Conservatives count because they won't accept anything else.

Gene Rayburn said...

Well there's the rub. You have one side that will not cease until it gets it's own way. That's not democracy but being a bully. Plus, people like Intfan spamming the internet dont really help their cause. Well I guess they werent serious about increasing their support as they often insulted and made outrageous assumptions of people that haven't swallowed their view lock stock and barrel.

So if the anti-registry gets defeated multiple times what makes that bullying attempt to get one vote legitimate Rat? That's just bullying by windbags.

ridenrain said...

By this reasoning, the Green party should just give up?

I don't like the greens but I support their right to try. Now that we very clearly identified rural MPs who didn't vote the will of their members, we'll remove them and try, try again.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Riden, one issue is not the same as a Federal election. Candidates in an election change so do the issues, that's why we hold DIFFERENT federal elections.

This one issue on the long gun registry was decided, so we move on to the next one, just like we move on with federal elections. We don't keep having the SAME federal election with the same candidates and the same issues over and over again, we move on.

If no party accepted a majority vote but just kept trying to change a previous vote we'd get nowhere. Democracy is accepting the will of the people. Just as a green candidate admits he or she lost and changes te issues so to must the Conservative Party. That's democracy.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Riden would you be so gracious as to inform me how many votes would it take for you to accept the will of Parliament in regards to keeping the long gun registry? You look like a guy who would need a solid 14 wasted votes until you accept it.

ridenrain said...

You spin away my analogy. The greens have been clearly rejected in 2 federal elections and have still failed to win ONE seat. I'd say that clearly disqualifies them from being serious contenders. I defend their right to participate in the process but don't want them in a national debate.

I still see the registry as the Toronto party imposing it's will on the rest of Canada. Imposing a new and unnecessary national registry is opposite to the basic idea of a smaller government which is one of the basic principles of the Conservative movement.

Let's see if the rural Liberals and Dippers survive and we' will talk of this again. In other words, it's as alive as the Liberal national day care program that Martin/Chretien has been promising.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

You're a beautiful person Ridenrain but every major police organization and a majority of police officers as well as doctors and nurses believe the registry is necessary.

Now was I wrong in guessing you'd stop at 14 wasted votes? Just how many votes would it take for you to accept a majority vote to keep the long gun registry? How many votes until you, in your ridenrain voice, say, "That's it, democracy you win this time, but some day.... I'll get you."?

ridenrain said...

Flattery but the greens were dismissed by voters twice so they should dry up and blow away?
The Liberals ha\vet been promising national childcare since you and I were children but they will drop that now?
The NDP have need calling for the workers of the world uniting but... whatever..

Canadian gun owners accepted the FAC/PAL program. I see no valid proof why we need to proceed further.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Oh Riden it appears I can't rebut your comments, clearly I am no match for you once again.

You're right consequential federal elections with different leaders, mps, issues, and even demographics are COMPLETELY the same as a repeated vote on the one same issue of whether to keep the long gun registry.

Even though democracy requires us to accept a majority vote, clearly democracy is no match for you. I know that there are a lot of things in this world that I'm unsure of, but I know I can believe in one thing, in Ridenrain I trust.

Oh and it's 15 right? After 15 votes to keep the registry THEN you'll finally accept it.

kursk said...

I'm sorry, but what statistical evidence do you have that the majority of police officers (and I daresay their leadership) overwhelmingly support this registry?

I can point to many rank and file police members and chiefs, as well as policing matters organizations that are against the registry.

Poll after poll shows that Canadians are against the long gun registry. What of their voices?

You speak of democracy, but what of the constituents that voted in MP's, based in part on the notion that they would vote to scrap the registry?

Is this democracy you speak of a one way street only? Were the MP's who voted to keep the registry truly reflecting the will of the people?

It's not being a bully to some to want to keep trying to rid the country of a program that was foisted on the Canadian public in a backlash to a dreadful crime. Who was the bully then?

If I may make an analogy, if the vast majority of a population dislikes the idea of gay marriage , should not those in favour of it be allowed to keep trying to have it implemented? Even though their position was not upheld by the will of the electorate?

In fact, most of you liberals would make the case that there are issues that should be fought time and time again until your view prevails. Is this not so? Abortion? How about capital punishment?

In a democracy, there is no such thing as one and done. You present your facts to as broad a range of people as possible in the hopes that they will come to see your way. Time after time. Do certain issues such as taxation matters disappear because some one, at some time, had the final one size fits all policy?

How about spending? Was voting on this issue suspended after 1867 for all time because there was an all encompassing first and only election fought over it? Of course not.

You cannot have it both ways. conservatives will keep trying to see this bill scrapped because above all else, it is a duplication of services that is wasteful of resources, costly,a prelude to eventual confiscation and has of today failed to prevent any of the deaths attributed to long arms in this country. In wasting political capital to win this battle, you have sown the seeds of electoral defeat for many members, both Liberal and NDP.

That, my friends, will be the true test of the will of the people. At some point, even the thickest head will perceive just how far out of the loop many are with people in rural Canada.

kursk said...

If I may make an analogy, if the vast majority of a population dislikes the idea of gay marriage , should not those in favour of it be allowed to keep trying to have it implemented? Even though their position was not upheld by the will of the electorate?

In fact, most of you liberals would make the case that there are issues that should be fought time and time again until your view prevails. Is this not so? Abortion? How about capital punishment?

In a democracy, there is no such thing as one and done. You present your facts to as broad a range of people as possible in the hopes that they will come to see your way. Time after time. Do certain issues such as taxation matters disappear because some one, at some time, had the final one size fits all policy?

How about spending? Was voting on this issue suspended after 1867 for all time because there was an all encompassing first and only election fought over it? Of course not.

You cannot have it both ways. conservatives will keep trying to see this bill scrapped because above all else, it is a duplication of services that is wasteful of resources, costly,a prelude to eventual confiscation and has of today failed to prevent any of the deaths attributed to long arms in this country. In wasting political capital to win this battle, you have sown the seeds of electoral defeat for many members, both Liberal and NDP.

That, my friends, will be the true test of the will of the people. At some point, even the thickest head will perceive just how far out of the loop many are with people in rural Canada.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Kursk, could you provide any sources for any of the claims you made? Also could please be succinct?

People can try to do whatever they want, people can claim gravity on earth works both ways, but it doesn't. I'm not saying it should be law that it's "one and done" I'm saying people have to accept majority votes or democracy is seriously threatened.

I prepared myself for a possible loss today, I would have accepted it. That's what rational people do.

There are of course times when people should stand up no matter what, equal rights is one of them. Having to license your gun at no cost is not a time to ignore a majority a vote.



Groups supporting the long gun registry:

The RCMP, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, the Trauma Association of Canada, and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.

"the RCMP analysis involved a survey of police officers who use the registry and found 81% agreed that the registry was “beneficial during major operations.”" - http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/08/30/15191131.html

"In the Aug. 26-29 survey, 48 per cent of respondents said it would be a bad idea to get rid of the registry, up from 42 per cent in April and 41 per cent last November. About 38 per cent thought the registry should be scrapped, down from 45 per cent in April and 46 per cent last November." - http://news.therecord.com/article/773465

Kaffir_Kanuck said...

Look, I’m all for gun control, but we already had it before the registry. The perpetuation of a registry in the hope that it will somehow save lives, which it can’t, is the very definition of insanity, no matter how many stake holders and unions support it. The fact that Liberal support has shrunk in the House from a majority in 2000 of 172 to less than 77 seats today proves democracy is working. The fact that the misplaced perception that this registry provides any kind of public safety was enough to swing the vote by a narrow two seats to keep the registry again proves that democracy is working. The fact that the Conservatives will be able to re-introduce an option for the parliamentary representatives to vote on this again proves that our confederate constitutionally driving democracy works. So, for those who bemoan the probability this issue will not go away in Parliament and brand it bullying by the Conservatives are the true arbiters of dictatorial behaviour; for closing debate on the issue, as the Liberals did prior to this vote, is exactly what socialists who find democracy inconvenient do. To keep rehashing the same tired support for a registry when the arguments have been made for why it is ineffective and present nothing new only brandishes the ideological bankruptcy which perpetuates more wasteful expenditure of tax dollars on something-that-doesn’t-do-what-it’s-supposed-to!

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Kaffir it's so refreshing to see some commentor not ridiculously exaggerate.

You provide no sources for any of your long rant.

Who am I going to believe some anonymous commentor or the RCMP, a majority of police officers, and public health institutes who all want the long gun registry and suggest the registry DOES save lives?

Kaffir_Kanuck said...

"You provide no sources for any of your long rant."

The seats in parliament are a in the Hansard.

The rest comes down to common sense. If the gun registry "does save lives" then why is it no one can find just one example of the registry having done so in the past 15 years?

Just 'cause the police associations and unions says so doesn't automatically make it so.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

My so much more intelligent Kaffir can you please inform me of the logical principle used in your mighty big head that dictates if there is no proof for something it must not exist?

There's no proof God exists so he mustn't. There's no proof inductive logic can be 100% trusted yet we trust it everyday. Oh and long gun deaths have dropped since the long gun registry has been adopted and the Quebec Health Institute and the RCMP partly credit the registry for that.

So yes every major police organization and a majority of police officers, don't forget doctors and nurses support the registry and say it saves lives but they are liars, Kaffir speaks the truth for he does not believe in inductive logic.

Kaffir_Kanuck said...

Again, how does the registry get credit for this? Long gun suicides, which is where the biggest drop in deaths associated with firearms has occurred, hasn’t dropped the suicide rate at all, in fact hangings have increased by more than the fewer self inflicted gun deaths. If anything, it’s the increase in the mandatory firearms safety training that can attribute a drop in mishandling incidents where people get killed or harmed by rifles coupled with changing demographics.

Again, there’s no proof or correlation that the registry makes it safer. Again you’re just repeating like nice sheeple what the big kids are saying. Of course, the fact the software company responsible for the abysmal tracking method the LGR uses having donated 110 grand to the police chief’s association probably has no correlation between that group supporting it when the beat cops don’t.

You’re the one who’s insinuating they’re lying. I’m just saying they’re making stuff up and have no facts to back up their claims. Quoting from a comment at this article explains it best:

http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/long-gun-registry-fires-back/4603

“For example, the anti-gun lobby frequently states on air, in its press releases, and in talking points they send to their union buddies, that rates of homicide by long guns has been dropping since the mid nineties, when the registry was introduced. In fact, homicides by all guns and violence against women in general has been dropping since the seventies. Why? perhaps because the '70s featured a demographic bulge of young people not present today, and it is young people who commit most violent crime.
The anti-gun crowd cherry picked the date of the start of the registry to make it appear that it has had some effect on reducing firearms violence. How can it? The registry contains only about half the long guns in Canada. And a significant number of entries it does have are incorrect.
Remarkably, since the introduction of the registry, handgun violence has increased, even though handguns have been registered since 1934. It seems that the criminal element can make more money importing illegal guns from the U.S. than running the risk of stealing them here.
Mr. Ling might want to go back to check his stats regarding robberies. Robberies with a weapon are not the same thing as robberies with a firearm. Also, he should go back to researching how many of the firearms used in assaults were actually registered. He will find that it was next to none or none at all. We have the criminal element at work here, not law-abiding firearms owners.
Finally, the stats Mr. Ling relies on seem to have come from the anti-gun crowd. This bunch only cares about violence against people if it involves firearms. They could not care less about stabbing, beating, vehicular manslaughter, poisonings, choking, and all the other way people find to hurt each other. Suicide by firearms may have dropped, but suicides in total have remained the same. A person determined to kill himself, herself, or someone else will always find a way.
Great Britain and Australia tried registration to lower gun violence. It didn't work. They tried confiscation. It didn't work. Registration and confiscation only affect the law-abiding. The armed criminal element simply laughed and went about their business. And gun crime stayed the same in Austrailia, and absolutely skyrocketed in Great Britain, which, according to the U.N. is now the most violent country in Europe, including The Balkans. Why not, now that armed British criminals now have a disarmed populace to push around.”

(Con't)