The Shotgun Blog
« The Enlightened Savage on the Wildrose Alliance | Main | Will Hollywood liberals show us the way to welfare reform? »
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Scott Reid blasts opposition move to kill gun registry bill
Conservative MP Scott Reid is blasting opposition members of a commons subcommittee after Monday morning's disgraceful attempt to secretly stop a bill to abolish the federal long-gun registry (Bill C-391) from coming to a vote in the House of Commons.
Reid's office issued the following statement:
On the morning of June 15th, at the subcommittee on Private Members' Business, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP revealed that they have a strategy to jointly and secretly kill efforts to repeal the firearms registry. Their strategy is to declare Bill C-391, the PMB that repeals the long-gun registry, non-votable.
The three parties were well aware that all government MPs support this bill, and that enough opposition members do as well, to allow it to pass the House of Commons.
So their solution was to kill the bill, behind closed doors, at an in camera meeting of the subcommittee, making it non-votable.
But, the committee met in open session. The Liberal, Bloc and NDP members did not read the notice of meeting and assumed that the meeting was in camera, and therefore, stated openly that they have no basis, under the Standing Orders, to deem the bill non-votable.
When it was revealed that the vote was taking place publicly, they halted in mid-vote to force the meeting to close its doors to the public.
Their goal? To kill the bill in secret, thereby getting their backbenchers—who have promised to vote against Bill C-391—off the hook.
"It is shameful that the Opposition would attempt such underhanded tactics to circumvent the will of the majority of Members of Parliament," said Scott Reid, MP.
Reid then made this statement in the House on Tuesday:
Reid, along with MPs Garry Breitkreuz and Candice Hoeppner are also set to hold a press conference on the matter this morning at 11:30 a.m. Eastern. An audio transcript of Monday's subcommittee meeting can be heard via the player below.
(Photo courtesy Tigresblanco / nicole. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license)
Posted by Jesse Kline on June 17, 2009 in Gun freedom | Permalink
Comments
None of this would be necessary if guns were legalized. It's not the state's business if I use guns at home. Think of all the cops who would need new jobs if everyone had their own guns.
Yes, this is satire.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-06-17 11:11:04 PM
So much for democracy--Heaven forbid that MPs should actually be allowed to represent their constituents! Americans do not allow a legislature to be run like this. There, at least, representatives can vote their consciences without fear of party discipline.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-18 6:20:30 AM
More disgusting and reprehensible behaviour on the part of those who would see us all as disarmed taxpayer/slaves. Just a quick look at the history of gun registration will take you to the doorstep of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Idi Amin....and if the "progressives" get their way...Parliament Hill. This is vile beyond description.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-18 6:56:06 AM
Oh well if the same dumb rednecks that consistantly vote against the freedoms of others lose a freedom that THEY love, that's a kind of justice in itself. I'd fuckin laugh at you guys if they outlawed guns altogether.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-18 7:20:59 AM
Oh well if the same dumb rednecks that consistantly vote against the freedoms of others lose a freedom that THEY love, that's a kind of justice in itself. I'd fuckin laugh at you guys if they outlawed guns altogether.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-18 7:20:59 AM
The comment of an uneducated moron who knows nothing of history. One who believes that Government will gaurd them in spite of the obvious eveidence to the contrary. One who has no clue as to the realities of life. One totally programmed by the media to believe as he is told to believe. We used to be a nation of principled people. But now we're a nation of brainwashed taxpayer's who's attention is focused on "reality shows". Sad and truly pathetic.
When the government has all the guns...we're doomed.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-18 8:01:04 AM
Greenthumb,
How are you any better? All you seem to want is freedom to get stoned. You, like those "rednecks", only want freedom for the issues you agree with.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-06-18 8:08:13 AM
Still riding the bitter bus, eh, Greenthumb? Well, a lifetime of outlawry will do that to you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-18 8:18:11 AM
In Roman times slaves were allowed to own busineses, property and even other slaves. The one thing they were not allowed to own were weapons. Many free Romans wore small daggers in public view as a mark of their status as a free man. You only have to look back in history to understand the logic behind gun control. It has absolutely nothing to do with public safety.
Posted by: Dave | 2009-06-18 8:38:07 AM
Druggies like Greenthumb ought to support gun control - it's the only thing preventing regular people from shooting people like him dead for peddling their wares in their neighborhoods.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-06-18 9:25:12 AM
Guns do not kill people
Postmen do
Posted by: Newman | 2009-06-18 10:41:57 AM
It makes you wonder just 'why' the liberals keep beating this dead horse. It has NOTHING to do with safety.. I'll bet if the registry closes down, many of their friends will be deprived of the kickbacks and easy money they have been accustomed to skimming off the top. And, after the money well dries up, the kickbacks to liberal coffers will also dry up. And THAT'S what really has them worried.. A new scab at the top, will never be able to protect all the festering corruption hidden below, and good ole Iggy won't know that till the excrement inevitably hits the Liberal fan again. The registry is a red herring anyway. It's really C.C.C.'s 91 & 92 that make Canadians 'Subjects' rather than Citizens.
Posted by: Bill | 2009-06-18 12:23:22 PM
Tell me why exactly so many of you want to live under a nanny state? Has freedom to do what you want without goverment intervention become so boring that you want to try the side. What stands out here is that the MPs who want to crack donw on gun ownership are the same ones who will not clamp down on the actal crimminals and seem to block every bill that would. Or is it just the bully mentality, attack the lawfull and ignore the lawless. Heres a statistic for you people who hate gun owners. A person who does not posess a firearms licence is 3 time more likely to commit a murder compared to someone with a gun license.
Posted by: Jeff | 2009-06-18 1:20:49 PM
Clicked the link to the bill but it talks about wearing a ribbon by the relatives of a veteran. Is that the right bill?
Posted by: Hilltop Boy | 2009-06-18 2:43:23 PM
Good catch, Hilltop. Right bill number, wrong session of parliament. The link has been fixed now.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-06-18 3:01:19 PM
I don't oppose MPs trying to kill this bill. That's their perogative as representatives of their electorate's will. But trying to sneak around to do it? I don't appreciate the attempt to apparently pursue their own agenda in spite of voters.
Jeff,
We better start arming our criminals to bring the murder rate down.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-06-18 3:15:50 PM
I don't support gun control, I just think it would be funny to see the social conservatives lose a right THEY cherish, because they are oh so ready to trample the rights of others to get their own way. The only way statists like you will EVER understand the police state you enable is when the fist of the state comes crashing down on you personally. Try having the state intrude on YOUR life and restrict the freedom's YOU value for a change, then see how much you enjoy the assholes who are standing to the side and cheering them on.
I AM a free man, and I'd probably still own guns no matter how illegal the state makes them. Laws have never prevented me from doing anything that I really wanted to do. I guess minding my own business, and my live and let live philosophy has helped me to remain without ANY criminal record until almost the age of 40.
I'm not bitter mathews I just think that you are an ignorant dick. I find you and your so-con friends utterly pathetic. Chirping about your freedom's being infringed on, all the while cheering on the state to interfere in the lives of others who have never done anything to harm you. Anyways I've had enough of you losers already, and I've only been online 5 mins. Time to get the kids out of the pool and go fishing. Try not to be too sad about your eating disorder making too much of a fatass to make it as a cop. I'll always think of you as a fascist pig even though you never earned a uniform.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-18 4:55:52 PM
Yes, of course, Greenthumb; misery loves company, doesn't it? The fact that someone cherishes one right but not yours is not grounds for taking theirs away. For the thousandth time, it is not about you. Moreover, you NEVER had the legal right to get stoned; you get stoned in spite of the law. You haven't lost anything; you're mad because you haven't gained something.
By your own words, you are a lifelong outlaw. With each word you utter you prove more and more the selfish, bitter old man we all know you do be, but can't admit you are. I don't have to destroy your reputation; I can just sit back and let you do it.
And watch the animal and sexual references; we both know I am more than your equal if you choose to take that road.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-18 7:24:10 PM
Lifelong outlaw? lol, I kind of like the sound of that actually. I never tried weed till I was like 19 or 20, but I did drink underage, and entered premesis where minors were prohibited. I think I got a couple of speeding tickets when I was 16 too. Yeah real dangerous gangster I am.
I only break laws that deserve to be broken. For example some dumbshits around here passed a law that says you may not possess crayfish. Can you guess what I immediately added to my fishtank? For anyone else who wants to possess crayfish, they do very well on a diet of shrimp pellets.
I guess that qualifies as an animal reference? WTF are you talking about animal references?
I'm definitely not going to have any discussion with ANY sexual references when there is a pedophile like you in the room who comes up with sexual scenarios involving my 7 year old child. I still wish they would have left up your statement so that everyone could see for themselves what a disgusting pile of vomit you really are. Go on and tell us about all the child sex in the "classic literature" again, you sick SOB.
If it makes you feel better to think I'm bitter then go ahead, but I'm actually one of the happiest, light hearted people around. I'll turn the board back over to you for the night so you can make 7 or 8 posts in a row. You can believe that everyone agrees with you or they'd be posting replies, even though its just that people are just plain tired of trying to talk some sense into that fat head of yours.
Myself, I've got 2 bottles of wine, a quarter ounce of bud, and a sexy wife who is waiting for me to go get naked with her in the jacuzzi, how could I possibly be bitter?
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-18 9:33:33 PM
Bragging about nailing your own wife is distasteful.
If the gun registry isn't shut down soon, there will be an entire generation of Canadians who've grown up thinking gun ownership is for the lunatic fringe. Eventually, if they catch them young enough, the anti-gun folks will have kids believing they're not losing anything by giving up a centuries old tradition.
Don't worry, I'm doing my share to educate the next generation. I'm doing it legally too. I'm sending my kids to firearms training, and I'm going to start hunting again. I don't care if I ever kill anything, but I'm going to spend time in the bush with my boys. They're going to learn, first-hand, why guns were such a big part of our history.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-18 10:44:04 PM
Bravo dp. Teach the children well.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-19 4:50:47 AM
I never said anything about "nailing", and I would never speak of my wife in such a degrading way. Women are people not objects that men "do" things to.
Maybe if some of you guys could learn to relate to women as equals, and give them the respect they deserve you could have a decent loving relationship and not be such bitter lonely old men.
Yes mathews that one was aimed directly at you. You call me bitter, but how often are you in here complaining about feminists and women in general? I think you even blamed opposition to killing the gun registry on "mostly women". You display a total distain for the opposite sex in several threads. Maybe you are the bitter one? Don't get much attention from the ladies when you are obese? Wife never seems to be "in the mood?" It would be one thing if you had a great personality to offset the fact that you have let yourself go, but you really come off as a jerk and a bully, so my guess is that you blame women for everything else when you are really just mad about them always rejecting you. It's not women's fault mathews, its you. Do some sit ups tonight instead of sitting in front of the computer eating pork rinds. Maybe if you work off some of that anger your experiences with women will be more positive.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-19 11:18:57 AM
"Lifelong outlaw? lol, I kind of like the sound of that actually."
Yup--just the kind of person whom we should consult about our laws.
"I only break laws that deserve to be broken."
Meaning you break any law you like for any reason that you like as often as you like. Please, tell us more.
"For example some dumbshits around here passed a law that says you may not possess crayfish. Can you guess what I immediately added to my fishtank?"
Oh, a poacher! This gets better and better.
"I guess that qualifies as an animal reference? WTF are you talking about animal references?"
A rural man who doesn't know a pig is an animal? Of course, you feigned innocence of sexual innuendo when you described law-abiding citizens as taking it slow and hard in the ass, too...
"I'm definitely not going to have any discussion with ANY sexual references when there is a pedophile like you in the room who comes up with sexual scenarios involving my 7 year old child."
I thought you said she was six. And for the record, I was not aware you had any children at all. It was a canned insult, meant to outgross you. It worked, too.
"I still wish they would have left up your statement so that everyone could see for themselves what a disgusting pile of vomit you really are."
Why don't you write them and ask them to reinstate it? Of course, Mike Brock's absurd rationalizations have since been removed from that same thread, probably to save himself future embarrassment. Mike Brock's posts seem to get deleted a lot, and he's a blogger.
"Go on and tell us about all the child sex in the "classic literature" again, you sick SOB."
Actually, this time I'll tell you about children "passing through the fire," wherein they heated the arms of a brass idol to red and then place an infant sacrifice in them, roasting him alive, to ensure a bountiful harvest...
"If it makes you feel better to think I'm bitter then go ahead, but I'm actually one of the happiest, light hearted people around."
Yeah...your posts really read like it, too.
"I've got 2 bottles of wine, a quarter ounce of bud, and a sexy wife who is waiting for me to go get naked with her in the jacuzzi, how could I possibly be bitter?"
All too easily, apparently.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 11:36:02 AM
"Maybe if some of you guys could learn to relate to women as equals, and give them the respect they deserve you could have a decent loving relationship and not be such bitter lonely old men."
GAG CHOKE COUGH COUGH (ahem). Sorry, but the stomach revolted, rather than attempt to digest hypocrisy of such magnitude. Of all the people who write here, Greenthumb, your posts are the nastiest, meanest, most insulting, most hate-filled, and most bitter. This is not the writing of a "happy, light-hearted" man. It's writing of a man who feels he has been taking it "slow and hard" all his life, and breaks every imaginable ordinance to compensate. You talk like a Nelson hippie draft-dodger.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 11:39:30 AM
"I think you even blamed opposition to killing the gun registry on "mostly women".
Do you deny it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 11:40:00 AM
"My guess is that you blame women for everything else when you are really just mad about them always rejecting you."
I have fine wife, Greenthumb, who unlike yours did not have to settle for an outlaw.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-19 11:41:02 AM
Hahahahah, a poacher? You kill me. A crayfish poacher, now that's funny. I have this image in my head of the government passing a ban on killing mosquitos, and you obeying it without question, sitting there on your fat ass letting the mosquitos drain your blood, a ml at a time.
If you love your wife do her a favour and get physically fit. Don't you think she deserves to have a husband that is not going to die of heart attack in the next 10 years? She might be "in the mood" a little more often if got that weight under control, and then you might not project so much bitterness toward women in general. You have to stop feeling sorry for yourself and take responsibilty for the way you look, only then will you be able to actually DO something about it.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-19 12:13:51 PM
I think all this arguing between all of you is wrong. Insulting eachother & eachothers way of life & personal decisions solves nothing.
Here's my take:
I'm against gun control but as a responsible gun owner i abide by the laws.
Britan has disarmed their citizens & guess what the violent crime rate has skyrocketed.It's human nature if someone is trying to hurt you, you will fight back.
If you have some sort of tool at hand to fight back with even better. A gun on it's own is just an object same like a wrench, knife, or anything else. The tool doesn't choose to be violent, the hands holding the tool make that decision.
In canada we have a big problem with the smuggling of illegal guns across our borders along with drugs & contraband cigarettes.
Us law abiding gun owners OBEY THE LAW !!!
If we want a gun we take our gun licence to the outdoor store & buy one legally , not from some thug with a trunk full of smuggled weapons.
Yes there's bad apples in every bunch but that again is human nature.How many of you anti gun people have been driving in your car & been cut off by some arsehole who is endangering everyone on the road ? The same idea is applied.
Fixing the problem of ALL violent crime in Canada guns included doesn't lie in creating some massive regristry & forcing some law abiding hunter or target shooter to register everything.
The fix is real simple Start with the borders where the illegal stuff is coming in, particularly Cornwall. Then go after all these street gangs in Toronto & other large cities where they're shooting eachother daily & innocent prople walking also take a bullet.
Third change the leglislation to make assaulting or killing with a gun or knive have EXTREME penalties.And introduce leglislastion that allows citizens the right to defend themselves against an attacker. A victim can die in one second. It takes police at least 2 minutes to get there.That's just another fact that you anti's have to stomach.
Last but not least crack down on these judges who keep giving light sentences & 2 for 1 etc...
I just gave an awnser to the problems facing our society that should satisfy every reasonable thinking person on both sides of this issue. Note that i didn't stoop low & start insulting anyone by calling them rude names.
Feel free to comment.
Posted by: Sean | 2009-06-21 8:09:00 AM
I just gave an awnser to the problems facing our society that should satisfy every reasonable thinking person on both sides of this issue. Note that i didn't stoop low & start insulting anyone by calling them rude names.
Feel free to comment.
Posted by: Sean | 2009-06-21 8:09:00 AM
hear hear Sean. What you are saying makes perfect sense, but that doesn't play for the emotional anti gun crowd..."Sense", I mean.
I've lived in large American cities where gun ownership was common and they have what I can only call "polite" societies. Quite unlike the gun ban cities where crime is rampant.
I read somewhere a while back that Phoenix (where I lived)had a lower crime rate per capita than does Calgary. I believe it.
I've evn spoken to Policemen in Calgary who agree their jobs would be a lot easier if law abiding society were armed.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-21 9:22:49 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.