The Shotgun Blog
« Kathleen Parker to GOP: Get rid of the "oogedy-boogedy" | Main | Reason brings National Addictions Awareness Week to a close »
Friday, November 21, 2008
Stephen Harper reconfirms his government's commitment to scrap the firearms registry
In a statement made yesterday in the House of Commons in response to the Throne Speech, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reconfirmed his government's commitment to scrap the firearms registry:
"We will also uphold our commitment to end the long gun registry, which is not only wasteful but has served to target law-abiding Canadians, especially rural Canadians, instead of dealing with gun crime."
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on November 21, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053615c2fa970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stephen Harper reconfirms his government's commitment to scrap the firearms registry:
Comments
WOO-HOO!!!! I feel like going to the range and shooting off a few hundred rounds in celebration.
And just watch - Toronto's gun violence will actually go down after the registry is scrapped, not up.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-21 11:31:04 AM
If gun violence goes down or up, it will be totally coincidental. The long gun registry had nothing to do with gun violence. People are being shot in Toronto with unregistered handguns. Maybe the money saved could be used to help close the pipeline that supplies these gang guns.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-21 11:49:31 AM
Actually, Zebulon, most shooting victims in Tronna are not law-abiding citizens targeted in their homes, where long guns are usually kept, but gangsta types and their associates doing drive-by and ambush deals on one another. The best way to reduce that kind of crap would be to issue concealed-carry permits and to bring back the death penalty for murder.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-21 11:51:45 AM
(sniff) It makes me want to go out and buy a Jim Brockman custom Marlin in .45-70 Government.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-21 11:56:10 AM
The gun control lobby put all their faith in the registry. If gun crimes went down after it was scrapped, then they would be exposed as fools.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-21 12:06:44 PM
The best way to reduce that kind of crap would be to issue concealed-carry permits and to bring back the death penalty for murder.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 21-Nov-08 11:51:45 AM
Damned straight, Shane. Having lived in Phoenix I can tell you that it is very polite society. I'm also told that Phoenix actually has a lower crime rate per 100,000 capita than does Calgary. Its easy to see the correllation between a license to carry and low crime rates. But the hysterical soccer Mom's disagree.
And its good to see PM Harper honoring an election promise.
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-21 12:08:27 PM
Does anyone know, are concealed carry permits available now? I used to have a carry permit for my job in the bush. The second time I renewed it, they added "must be visible at all times" to the conditions. I thought maybe it was to make sure the bears didn't put themselves at risk without fair warning. My objection to this condition was that I ended up having to explain myself to everyone I met. Forest Rangers seemed to take exception, because they couldn't get the same permit, at the time.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-21 12:34:03 PM
Seriously if gun crime escalated out of control in Toronto - more than it already has - I wouldn't care in the slightest. Those people deserve it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-21 5:03:11 PM
Shane- Jim Brockman makes some badass rifles. I like the look of the "Beast" model. I worked with a guy who had a single shot Ruger 45-70. Not exactly a long range caliber, but who cares? Very cool.
Zeb- I really don't see any connection whatsoever between the registry and Toronto's Jamaican problem. The fact that you see a connection sort of puts you on the same side as Allan Rock.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-21 5:54:24 PM
I never speak of Toronto's non-white population except as an abused, exploited and neglected part of its population. Instead, the real enemy is its white population, who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-21 5:58:07 PM
Actually, dp, buffalo runners used to take down buff at 700 yards with the .45-70. With black powder, and vernier sights. If you've got a good way to determine range and an adjustable sight you can own out to the limit of the unaided eye.
Psst, and don't tell the cops this, but slow, heavy bullets moving at black powder velocities will actually punch through bulletproof glass, which was designed to stop the very fast but very light bullets used in modern rifles. So while dignitaries in their armoured limos are not vulnerable to magnum sniper rifles, they are not safe from muskets.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-21 6:11:41 PM
Zeb,
What do you mean they would be exposed as fools. They were exposed as fools from the moment the even suggested harassing law abiding citizens with this farce.
It is no secret that most governments would love to have totally unarmed populations. That alone would increase their power over the people by a factor of ten.
When I hear the term "power to the people" I note that is usually comes from people who actually want big government to take care of them in every way. What's the word for that ... juxtaposition.
What they are actually saying is "power to the government" The Left is so stupid and clueless that when speak, I puke.
Posted by: John V | 2008-11-21 6:16:14 PM
Nice to see his re-affirmation to get rid of this millstone. I just hope its not talk.
Posted by: Revnant Dream | 2008-11-21 6:20:38 PM
WOO-HOO!!!! I feel like going to the range and shooting off a few hundred rounds in celebration.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 21-Nov-08 11:31:04 AM
You don't need to go to a shooting range to fire your cap gun Punk.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-21 6:44:19 PM
Instead, the real enemy is its white population, who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk| 21-Nov-08 5:58:07 PM
Still dreaming of killing them all Punk?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-21 6:51:33 PM
Still dreaming of killing them all Punk?
Posted by: The Stig | 21-Nov-08 6:51:33 PM
Why bother when they'll do it to themselves. All it takes is patience. Ontario is a racist, fascist self-destructive society.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-21 7:12:48 PM
Drop the gun registry. Pass a federal castle doctrine law which would allow people to shoot people who break into their house, business, or car (without the gunowner being required to retreat first). Third, pass a federal concealed carry law. Finally, bring back the death penalty for murder, rape, and terrorism. Put those four policies into effect(together with the Conservative Party's other anti-crime initatives) and lets see how low the Canadian crime rates go. These three combined measures have reduced crime in the American states where they have been applied. U.S. murder rate down to its lowest level since 1966. The crime rate is at its lowest level in almost 35 years. Death penalty exists in 36 states(all except NH have now carried out executions). The death penalty actually works if it is consistently applied. Having the law on the books and not using it makes it ineffective. 40 states(8 more have strictly limited concealed carry weapons laws) have concealed carry laws with only limited restrictions. Thirty three states now have some version of a castle doctrine law. Look at the record the tough on crime approach works.
Posted by: Luke | 2008-11-21 9:42:13 PM
Luke, you'll probably have to wait until the last of the Quiet Revolution generation kicks the bucket, or at the very least leaves the bench, to get even one of those passed in this country. And only if the Democrats are in power down South. Canadians resent moving in the same political direction as the U.S. for some reason. Had Kerry won in 2004, Stephen Harper might have a majority today.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-22 11:42:07 AM
If they allow concealed carry, they'll have to allow short barrels again. I don't think I'll be able to conceal the Redhawk very well.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-22 12:46:23 PM
If they allow concealed carry, they'll have to allow short barrels again. I don't think I'll be able to conceal the Redhawk very well.
Posted by: dp | 22-Nov-08 12:46:23 PM
dp, a .45 semi auto (1911 model) with 6 " barrel will fit nicely in shoulder holster. there are some flat sided (thin) models that work really well.
And Luke, the idea of a cstle law (never heard it called that) sounds like a good idea for crime control. And it might save the courts a lot of time. ;)
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-22 2:40:20 PM
Regarding the increasing number of violent home invasions, I think that the gubmints should allow
a homeowner to use maximum force to defend their family and house.
But on the other hand, there are probably quite a few people who would do that anyway, even without a law. Heh. Good for them.
Posted by: rockyt | 2008-11-22 3:26:12 PM
I wonder if they will also get rid of the 2000 + employees of this stupid program. Bets anyone ?.
Let me be the first to vote...no they wont.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-22 3:44:46 PM
JC- Got one, and plenty others. A couple that would fit in your shirt pocket. The 1911 has a 5" barrel, BTW. Too bad they're stuck in a big old safe 360 days a year.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-22 4:02:29 PM
dp, I like the Kimber Target2. It comes out every other weekend and goes to the pistol range. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you're going to own firearms, handling them should be a matter of "muscle memory". And just checked, you're right, its a 5". Still if you practice they're fairly accurate within 80 feet or so.... Maybe more, never fired it outside.
As for long guns...I really hope they drop the registry, which is merely a tool of confiscation anyway. I have a T shirt that gets some looks, on the front a picture of Mao, Stalin and Hitler and it says, "Mass Murderers Agree, Gun Control Works"
On the back, "Politicians Just Love Disarmed Peasants"
Man does that one get some looks! lol
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-22 4:24:07 PM
JC- Kimber's look very solid. I have a classic 10mm Colt that looks like new. The 10 is making quite a comeback. They're very practical designs, but for long range accuracy the 44 mag is top dog. I had a model 29 years ago that could have taken down a deer at 100 yards.
Posted by: dp | 2008-11-22 4:48:05 PM
JC: can we add David Miller and Wendy Cukier to that list?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-22 5:06:34 PM
Castle doctrine is taken from a concept in English common law. The castle doctrine first gained notoriety when Florida passed such a law in 2005 and gun control groups launched a failed campaign to take down the state's tourism industry. Information can be found on the NRA website. About 20 additional states have since passed such laws bringing the number to about 33 states.
Interesting Facts: Obama was anti-death penalty, opposed concealed carry laws, and favored a handgun ban when in the Illinois state legislature. Once nominated by the Democrats, Obama became pro-death penalty(probably because polls show about 70% public approval for death penalty for murderers with higher numbers for cop and serial killers). He even spoke out against a 5-4 Supreme Court decision which opposed extending the death penalty to child rapists. This might be because a poll showed Americans support the death penalty in such an instance by a 56%-38% margin. Once he ran for president, he said that he supported the right to own guns and would not attempt to ban guns or infringe on the rights of gun owners. This was probably because a handgun ban is heavily opposed by the American public(68%-30% oppose). Polls also show a majority support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. After the Supreme Court's Heller decision struck down Washington D.C.'s gun ban, Obama spoke out in support of the court's move. This is interesting because he had earlier spoken in support of D.C.'s gun ban. However, Obama probably changed his mind when he saw that Americans supported the Heller decision by more than 2 to 1(61%-27%). The end result is that Obama's campaign adjusted his positions to correspond with most voters. The question is will Obama revert to his former self and risk the mother of all backlashes or will he strictly limit his social agenda and accept the dominant conservative position on these issues. If he is smart then he will stay out of these subjects which have sunk many a Democrat candidate. There are many policy battles that will take place under Obama's watch: 1.)economic issues like taxes and 2.) government involvement in the economy, 3.)healthcare, 4.)America's role in Afghanistan(since Iraq appears to be won, no thanks to Obama), 5.)the handling of terrorist suspects, 6.)the size of the military budget, 7.)abortion(Obama opposes any restrictions but most Americans want it legal and strictly limited), 8.)gay rights(though Obama is currently insisting that he is against gay marriage), 9.)illegal immigration, and 10.)affirmative action(Obama supports and most people oppose). Obama's campaign statements(on guns and the death penalty) allowed him to poll significantly better among gun owners and socially conservative people than John Kerry. A bad economic crisis, unusually high minority turnout, and his successful attempt to narrow his main areas of disagreement with social conservatives led to his victory. His current agenda(the 10 areas discussed) will cause enough arguments in the U.S. Any further items will sink his presidency, So, Obama will push hard but the U.S. will probably remain more socially conservative than Canada but have a more socialist-oriented economy. Opinion anyone?
Posted by: Luke | 2008-11-22 8:07:33 PM
JC: can we add David Miller and Wendy Cukier to that list?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 22-Nov-08 5:06:34 PM
Zeb, you can add anyone that seeks to control people or that thinks we will have a "Utopia" if we just make the guns "go away".
The control freaks are exactly that! And the others have only "emotional" arguments against gun ownership.
But I think its a sobering fact that after first registering and then confiscating the guns, various regimes in the 20th century rounded up and exterminated 56 million people that were completely unable to defend themselves.
The only way we should give up our guns is when they are hot, empty and pried from cold hands...
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-23 8:22:08 AM
So, Obama will push hard but the U.S. will probably remain more socially conservative than Canada but have a more socialist-oriented economy. Opinion anyone?
Posted by: Luke | 22-Nov-08 8:07:33 PM
Your comments point out a few things. First, what a bunch of hypocritical liars politicians truly are...and yes the US economy will be more socialist (fascist). Unfortunately what that brings in reality is more control of the population...which was always the end goal wasn't it?
Posted by: JC | 2008-11-23 8:25:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.