When the gun lobby backfires

Stephen Harper must have some sympathy with those NDP MPs who are now switching their vote on the gun registry, largely because they don't like the heavy-handed tactics being used against them. 

Once upon a time, way back in the 1990s, a young Reform MP called Stephen Harper actually voted in favour of the gun registry too, mainly because the pro-gun folks disturbed him. Janice Tibbets has reminded us of this again today in a  Postmedia report -- and here's a blog entry I did a year ago on the same subject.  It contains a link to  an old Southam  story, by Joan Bryden,   referring to  the threats that Harper had received from gun-lobby folks. 

I remember chatting to Harper after his town-hall session in Calgary. He told me that after he left the meeting, he told his wife in the car that he didn't like the mix of anger and guns -- seemed a little dangerous. He especially didn't like the idea of gun owners vowing to defy the law.  Hair-trigger tempers, contempt for the law -- these aren't great conditions for gun ownership, he said. 

Today, of course, Harper is in favour of scrapping the gun registry. But it's still true that the gun lobby is its own worst enemy. CBC's report last night, on the involvement of the U.S. National Rifle Association, pretty much makes that same point. 

Comments

[Greg]

Hopefully this vote ends soon and we can get back to economic issues.

[Mike Waterloo]

The first thing authoritarian states ban are guns.The form of gun bans in the west is somewhat different, but the effect is the same. That is, to make it more difficult for the poorest among us, to engage in whatever activity it is that is being regulated at the moment.
Wait! you say? That's not the intention? It's just to keep guns off the street you say? Well, that never works, it fails as any prohibition must, see drugs and alcohol.
I personally have no issue against the wealthy nor do I see the state as the saviour of the poor, but the nation of Canada hates the poor as can be witnessed by it's authoritarian dictates.
The people that always suffer the most are the poor. Rich people can get around any regulation. They can stand up to the state by merely paying what ever bribe or extortion the state deems suitable.

But the poor, cannot. The only way they can circumvent any regulation is by ignoring it and thus becoming criminals in the process.

With only 11% of land in Canada being privately owned, it offers the perfect storm to afford the rich to control that other 89%, and in some cases for not one red cent.

But those same opportunities are denied to the poor because they are not connected with the elite strata of society.

It would not be fair to anyone to subsidize the poor and make the poor dependent upon the state and the rest of the people.

It comes down to this: either one believes in Freedom or one believes that a monolithic state, with infinite power, will make you a better person. which has not happened yet. But the purveyors of authoritarianism, like a mental patient going through useless motions of digging a hole without a shovel, will preach that eventually, the hole will be large enough if they simply set enough pointless activities into motion. See war on poverty.

The state has become an organ of entitlement, the people of Canada have followed suit right on cue.

The nation has become a very much dumbed down herd of sheep that responds to bleats and ignores reason in favour of emotion and legislative masturbation.

If things are to continue status quo, eventually, Canada will be the Cuba that is forced to lay off millions of state agents they can no longer afford to pay. The state will have run short of victims and the well will be dry.

[Old Jim]

Re:Posted by: Mike Waterloo | September 14, 2010 at 07:57 AM..

GOOD POST! Interesting that prior to the long gun registry, anyone purchasing a weapon and or ammunition had to be registered and the police had access to the data in that registry. It was sufficient to know who owned a gun and it wasn't necessary to know what caliber/guage the weapon was. The long gun registry simply inventories already legally acquired rifles and shotguns and criminalizes honest citizens. The registry removes nothing from the inventory and it certainly hasn't saved any lives. If the data is accessed over 17,000 a day as suggested by the police chiefs, then the data is being grossly misused as its hard to believe that there are over 17000 daily occassions where violent use of a long gun by a registered gun owner is suspected, causing the data to be accessed. The next step will undoubtedly the removal of all registered weapons from the citizens for their own safety and well being. The registry is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy and causes a further dumbing down of urban voters at the expense of rural Canada. This week the Health Ministers have decided that they want to control the amount of salt we eat as well as the type of prescription drugs that are made available to us. Next week they will likely want to remove 3.5% and 2% milk from the shelves as 1% has less Butter fat. Goodbye salted butter and another personal freedom to chose. Canada is no longer a freedom loving country as is evidenced by the ongoing and increasing intrusion into our ability to think and decide what we want to ingest and what personal risks we want to take in our daily lives. Used to be that we could do what we wanted as long as we didn't interfere with the well being of others in the process. That was when we enjoyed freedom!

[Aongasha]

Surely Susan you realize that blaming on the tory ads and pressure is a load of hogwash? That's a convenient excuse because the NDP is losing ground to the Liberals and Jack is nervous. I defy anyone one to read the NDP mps heartfelt statements about their constituents rights when supporting the bill through 2 readings this past year and not call their present about face anything but hypocrisy. I thought their party was better than that. Guess not.
And to relate that to what Harper thought 20 years ago and today is to say that no one over a long period of time can change their mind on issues. And no, the 2 are not the same.

[jad]

So the rural NDP members really believe, like their constituents, that the Gun Registry is a waste of time, but because the Conservatives are lobbying hard to cancel it, the NDP are going to go off in a hissy fit and vote to keep it.

And they wonder why they are the 4th party in the House ?

[s-joy]

that "greg" post is just plain nutz!....but I digress

I hope that enough NDP will vote with the Libs to tank this bill....not the gun registry....

I also hope that the Liberals will cross the floor and shake the hand of every one of those NDP members of parliament who have been the target of CRAP and NRA smear ads. They will have displayed the courage to place police safety above concern for keeping their seat in the next election, and that deserves to be acknowledged.

The police have a dangerous task when responding to domestic dispute calls, or other situations where guns are an issue....they do need to know how many guns are on the premises if possible. The majority of police officers say the gun gegistry helps in determining this. If they consider it important...and they do....that is good enough for me!!

Who the hell are these politicians and NRA types to second-guess our police officers???....they should try putting their own asses on the line sometime.

And that old self-serving canard lifted straight out of the NRA play-book about the "law-abiding citizen"....gimme a break....everybody is law-abiding until they take their first shot at someone, dummy.....what a load of C.R.A.P.that argument is.

If this rotten bill passes, and one officer's life is lost because of it.....I would support the authors of the bill being be held criminally responsible.

[EM]

Well, Harper would seem to be safe from attacks on the Hill by angry gun-toting Canadians; he's absorbed their anger for political power and redirected it at the rest of us.
Cynicism is raised to new heights on both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, some of those GR opposers say they have a 'final solution' at their disposal and damn the consequences to a safe democracy.

[Rod Croskery]

NRA members seem to have a mystical reverence for the power of the gun, and at one point in human history this might have had some currency, but the weapons of choice of insurgents today are remote-controlled improvised explosive devices. Guns are too ineffectual to feed their taste for mayhem.

Face it: a .357 magnum may look cool, but for power to challenge an oppressor, it doesn't hold a candle to a hijacked airliner with a full load of fuel.

So to keep up with the times will the NRA come out in favour of the unfettered possession of fertilizer? Diesel fuel? Garage door openers?

[notapsycho]

What infuriates me with the whole long gun registry bit is that fact that Canadians don't have a US 'gun culture', we are generally a caring society and the majority of firearm related problems are related to criminal activity. The reason for the registration was completely political and does nothing to prevent a gangster from picking up a 'midnight special' and using it. We don't have the right to bear arms, we don't have the right to carry a firearm for protection against people and we have had a handgun registry for 50 years that has always worked very well. Education on gun safety is a good thing and will continue without a registry. I choose to hunt and target shoot because I enjoy it, not because I am a borderline psycho who needs to be registered. The amount of time, money and resources spent on this issue could have been applied to fighting crime, gangs and illegal firearms and we would, perhaps, have achieved the goal of reducing gun violence. Being complacent on this issue by saying that I disagree but it is not a big deal is not the way to go; Canadians should be proud of our culture and our traditions and tell the politicians that we want action on criminals and not restrictions/regulation on our recreation. I believe the support of the registry gives the politicians a ‘pat on the back’ for doing something about a crime but in reality we should be giving them a kick in the pants for doing nothing!

[Gabby in QC]

“Harper initially supported long-gun registry” reads the headline of Janice Tibbets’ column. Does she mean the same way Trudeau opposed wage and price controls and six months later he favoured them? Or the way Chretien initially opposed the GST and the FTA and then championed them? Or the way Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Anne McLellan first supported the traditional definition of marriage and then changed their mind, after a little arm twisting from some lobby groups? Why are those reversals accepted as “situation normal, politicians changing stance,” but with Harper it takes on the aspect of cataclysmic proportions?
If we must revisit Harper’s position at the time … from Joan Bryden’s Hamilton Spectator 1995 column:
• After surveying his constituents & finding broad support in principle for gun control, Harper supported the bill at second reading.
• Harper then conducted a second survey, explained the details of the bill, and found a majority opposed it.
• He consequently voted against the bill at third and final reading.
• As Joan Bryden wrote in ’95, Harper “… consulted them on gun control *because he promised he would.* …”
I believe THAT is the main argument being used against members of the opposition who campaigned on agreeing to abolish the registry and have now backtracked.

[Maureen]

Harper's deputy Pierre Pollievre, in dismissing the NRA interest in defeating the gun registry, denies knowing who Tony Bernardo is...Pollievre can't be a very good deputy to Harper or he's kept in the dark a lot.

Canada's only civil society representative (the ones officially invited by our government to advise them) to this year's United Nations United Nations Biennial Meeting of States to Consider Implementation of the PoA (programme of action on small arms and light weapons) to stem the tide of illegally traded small arms was none other than - step up to the plate Tony Bernardo and his Canadian Sport Shooting Association.

His boss at the Canadian Sport Shooting Assocation was a member of the official Canadian Delegation.

In fact the Canadian Sport Shooting Assocation (CSSA) was the only NGO invited to participate by the Canadian government this year - at previous meetings the government was advised by a host of Canadian civil society groups like Project Ploughshares - a peace advocacy group.

The CSSA has led the fight to stop the Canadian government from implementing some of the measures of the small arms treaty that would trace illegally traded arms back to their country of origin arguing the measures would "harm" sports shooters by making guns cost more.

Nice having the gun lobby advise our government on international arms treaties....and highly doubtful Pollievre doesn't know who Tony Bernardo is...

[Mike Waterloo]

On the failure of the gun registry, one can name numerous instances. In fact, every time a crime is committed with a gun, it is a failure of the registry.

But the pro registry folks, cannot offer one single instance of it having saved a life.

Because it cannot save a life and it cannot make one safe or even more safe.

It is based on feelings and not on fact or logic.

If a nation was ever ripe for the picking as a police state, Canada is the one. The pro registry people are taking the word of desk jockeys and police politicians over the front line police.

Pretty soon, you'll be believing that carpenters don't need nail guns if the police tell you that it makes the police more safe.

If a policeman's job was safe, we wouldn't need them.

[Mike Waterloo]

Jad said: 'law-abiding citizen"....gimme a break....everybody is law-abiding until they take their first shot at someone, dummy.....what a load of C.R.A.P.that argument is.

If this rotten bill passes, and one officer's life is lost because of it.....I would support the authors of the bill being be held criminally responsible.'

Hey cops have guns. Based on your assumption that no one's criminal until they decide to be, cops should not have guns either. Because they're only human and there's as much possibility that a cop will become a criminal as any other person.

I say your attitude is without foundation and has no sense of justice whatsoever.

Who will you blame when a registered gun kills the policeman? How did the registry work when that happens?

Identify who you will prosecute, beyond the perpetrator, for unregistered guns killing policeman? Or for killing a private person? How did the registry work when that happens?

Your clearly in favor of extra-judiciary justice so let's see if you will carry that to it's logical conclusion.

The registry is a list. Nothing more. It is not a tool. It is Cadillac money spent on an a hammer that cannot drive a nail.

[jad]

Mike Waterloo,

Just for the record, it was s-joy not me who made the comment about "law-abiding citizens" - the author's name appears below the post.

I totally support Ms. Hoeppner's bill to scrap the registry.

[Mike Waterloo]

Thanks for clearing that up Jad.

Please accept my most humble apology.