Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin announced yesterday the Liberals, if re-elected, will ban most handguns in Canada. He will exempt qualified target shooters, which means you're OK if you're already on the Olympic team. I doubt if casual shooters who get to the range once a month qualify. Collectors have to turn in their guns. I'd assume this includes those in the current antique class for which commercial ammunition is no longer available. Gun owners who turn in their guns will be compensated at fair market value. That's what the Liberals, not you, think they are worth.

While we can discuss Martin's ban here, the CanadianGunNutz forum is the best place for up-to-date information on what the whole story is and how to take action. That forum is much more mature now than it once was, fortunately.

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/index.php

Remember, Shrieking Annie said registration will never lead to confiscation.

Bye
Jack

Sacre bleu mon ami!! Do you want to borrow Charton Heston for awhile?

It seems they never stop, do they, Jack?

What are the chances of the liberals taking a majority, or enough on the other side of the aisle joining them in this latest push of anti-gun legislation?

Seems to me, Martin and his gang of hangers-on have about used up all their credits with the average Canadian citizen and will be hard pressed to form a majority government.

The Liberals have a minority now and won't get a majority unless both the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois run into serious difficulties. The Liberals are in real trouble in Quebec thanks to the Adscam scandal and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe is the sharpest party leader of the four, even if he deserves the nickname "Belt Fed".
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42305&highlight=bloc

The Conservatives have a lock on Alberta and most of Saskatchewan. They're in a bit of trouble in British Columbia as several of the old Reformers are retiring and old line Tories are running this time. The Conservatives have to pick up seats in Ontario and the Maritime provinces to win a minority or majority. A majority is a long shot with 50-60 seating in Quebec out of play, thanks to the Bloc. Conservative leader Stephen Harper doesn't appeal to a lot of people, myself included. He is not pro-gun, but the majority in the party is.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) is anti-gun and their nutbar leader Jack Layton is from Toronto, where most of Canada's handgun murders happen. They're going soft on gun control as much of their Union support is pro-gun and, like the Bloc, don't want another Billion $,$$$,$$$,$$$ going down the Liberal's gun control sinkhole.

Best bet, a Conservative minority. This still lets them kill the long gun registry by stopping funding and by Order-In-Council. The handgun registry was a Conservative creation back in 1934, and Harper wants it kept, even if it's completely useless.

Public reaction to the handgun ban wasn't favourable. Even Liberal mouthpieces like the CBC and Globe & Mail were cool to it. CTV ran an online poll yesterday that went 78% against a handgun ban. 30,000 voted when 3,000 on most issues is a lot. The Toronto Red Star was in favour of a ban, but there's the old Royal Canadian Air Farce joke.

"I read it in the world's leading communist newspaper."
"Pravda?"
"No, the Toronto Star."

Bye
Jack

Welcome to the club. I am in the same situation as you in this God-forsaken liberal minded city, San Francisco. I guess both of us need to open up a safety box as some of the memebers of this forum suggested. /sigh

Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin announced yesterday the Liberals, if re-elected, will ban most handguns in Canada. . . Collectors have to turn in their guns.

Ooh, this will be good.
I'm waiting for all the Americans to jump in here and attack this - conveniently ignoring the fact that widespread confiscation of firearms has occurred on American soil without a declaration of martial law (or really, any legal basis whatsoever) within the last year.
Of course, those who confiscated the firearms were "punished", a whopping 60 officers were fired, and there were some suspensions and demotions - this wasn't only for their blatant disregard of the second amendment, but also for things like looting in uniform, beating civilians, and using lethal force to prevent civilians from entering or leaving the city (aah, aaah, aaah Dongzhou)

And you might say "that's different" - and I completely agree.
Canada doesn't have a bill of rights with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in it.

Good luck, Jack.

Guys, let's keep this thread focused on the Canadian issues, to best help out our fellow shooters this time.

Ooh, this will be good.
I'm waiting for all the Americans to jump in here and attack this - conveniently ignoring the fact that widespread confiscation of firearms has occurred on American soil without a declaration of martial law (or really, any legal basis whatsoever) within the last year.
Of course, those who confiscated the firearms were "punished", a whopping 60 officers were fired, and there were some suspensions and demotions - this wasn't only for their blatant disregard of the second amendment, but also for things like looting in uniform, beating civilians, and using lethal force to prevent civilians from entering or leaving the city (aah, aaah, aaah Dongzhou)

And you might say "that's different" - and I completely agree.
Canada doesn't have a bill of rights with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in it.

If you wait for me to jump on it, you are gonna have a hellava long wait, so get comfy.

To our Canadian brethren of the forum ... what kind of firearm organizations do you guys have in Canada similar to the NRA? How well organized is/are the organization(s) you have? And what kind of response or actions do they typically make when the liberal anti-gunners act up? Haven't ever read the Canadian constitution so I'm just guessing that you aren't so fortunate as we are with our 2nd amendment (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyhow, I'm asking these questions to be more informed and hope they aren't misconstrued by anyone. Hoping several of you Canadians chime in on this to get all your perspectives.

There's several firearms organizations, and they've spent more time fighting with each other than with the government of the day. Right now I can't recommend any of them, although I know which one isn't getting any of my money. There was a pretty good grass-roots protest when the registration legislation went through.

As far as our constitution goes, between the British North American Act of 1867's "Peace, Order and Good Government" clause, which gave the government the right to do what it felt fit for it's definition of rights; and the Charter of Rights of 1982's first clause, which reduces our rights to privileges, we don't have much for rights.

(1) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Bye
Jack

loraksus can't understand the obvious dislike of the US on your part. Do know that I opose the taking of firearms from the populous in our country and in Canada. I hope you are successful in blocking it up there.

Jack,
good luck to you in this endevour.

It may sound a bit extremist, but all of you Canadians should probably seize your last opportunity as a free people and vote. If that doesn't work, you'll have to decide for yourselves what will be needed to keep your country a free nation. If your right/priviledge, don't know your constitutional structure very well, to own arms is not preserved you will become mere minions of the state. If one class of firearms is banned, the rest will follow...and don't think your vote will mean a God-****ed thing after that. Ooops, what God, no room for that in a socialist/communist state.

We here in the U.S. have some idea we live in a free society, it is a very bad joke on all who believe it. If you do not pay your taxes( no matter what it is that they support), which give the government it's power (money), your property and your person will be taken at the point of a gun (which YOU are not responsible enough to own), and you will not be heard from again. It's no real big deal though...you'll be able to watch all the sporting events and regular television programs.

Sorry to subject you to my rantings, but if you can find anything that is not true in them, please respond.

P.S. I am in no way encouraging the overthrow of any govermnment, foriegn or domestic. I am not even encouraging the use of "re-education" camps for those that have partaken of the Kool-Aid freely distributed by the non-National Socialists in your country.

I would guess this is pretty much the end of Canada as you, and those of us who regularly go there, know it.

This was a copy and paste from the local newspaper, I'm still too frustrated to comment.:mad:
Need a Canadian wing of the NRA in my opinion.:)
Bryan

Handgun ban faces staunch opposition (http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=107&cat=59&id=&more=)


Dec 09 2005
Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to ban handguns could cost his party an election win, say angry Central Albertans.
"The Liberals just don't get it," said Bruce Hutton, a former RCMP officer who has loudly opposed the national gun registry.
"This will cost them some seats in northern Ontario that could swing the vote."
The Liberals propose an anti-crime package that would toughen weapons penalties and pump $325 million into policing.
"Handguns will be banned. They are used to threaten people, they are used to intimidate them, they're used to kill people," Martin said on a stop in a Toronto neighbourhood that has been rocked by shootings.
Martin vowed an amnesty and buy-back program to collect handguns.
He also plans to waive the re-licensing fee for the problem-plagued registry of long firearms.
Millions would be pumped into the RCMP, mainly for a squad to fight gangs, organized crime and drugs.
Border crossings would be beefed up with new intelligence workers and investigators.
But Hutton, who founded the the Law-abiding Unregistered Firearms Association, said it's just another step toward an all-out ban on guns.
Many local gun owners have never forgiven the Liberals for creating a registry for long guns in 2003. At the time, they predicted the next step would be confiscating guns.
"We are disappointed that our predictions are coming true," said Hutton, leader of the provincial Separation Party.
Some local gun owners believe tough laws only impede law-abiding residents who use firearms to hunt, sport shoot or protect themselves.
Criminals and gang members will be untouched because they don't adhere to laws, said Hutton of Rocky Mountain House.
"Criminals don't go to the local gun store, buy a gun and register it.
"If handguns are banned, only criminals will have them."
Many guns used on the street are smuggled in illegally from the U.S., according to police.
Red Deer MP Bob Mills, a Conservative, said Canada has had strict gun laws since 1934.
Canadians can receive a licence for a handgun if it's part of a collection, used for competition or falls under other conditions.
Mills said gun controls are needed, but he questions why laws need to be even more severe.
But Luke Kurata, running for the Liberals in Red Deer, said his understanding was every province would be allowed to choose whether to enact a ban.
A Liberal party news release said a Criminal Code amendment would "invite" provincial governments to participate in a "national ban."
Kurata said each province would be able to review their needs. For instance Ontario, plagued by gang violence and shootings, may see a need for ban.
"It's only one part of a comprehensive national crime-prevention strategy."
But Martin was not quoted as saying the ban was optional.
Pat Hagemann, executive director of the Central Alberta Women's Emergency Shelter, said fewer guns on the streets may help in the fight against violence. But more is needed.
She believes the government must also address the underlying causes of violence, such as poverty and child care.
Supt. Jim Steele, head of Red Deer's RCMP, said he believes a handgun ban would have pros and cons.
On one hand, it could be a problem for people who legitimately use handguns. But it would be beneficial if handguns, used in illegal activities, are taken off the street.
By andrea miller
Advocate staff and Canadian Press

From the previous post:

"She believes the government must also address the underlying causes of violence, such as poverty and child care."

Well, we've probably all heard that, or similar before. Looking for any reason but the obvious one, lack of criminal control.

Jack Monteith, I'm curious, what are the general criminal sentences for conviction of burglary, murder, etc (with a firearm), in Canada? And, do criminals generally serve the full sentence, or get out early for "good behavior"?

25 years is the max for 1st degree murder and only the worst of the worst, like Paul Martin,,,, errr Bernardo, ever serve all of their sentence. Concurrent sentences are the norm, and there's more Whooping Cranes hatched in Canada in a year than consecutive sentences passed. If you're under 18, you're scot-free.

I'm too cranked about this to say anything more.

Bye
Jack

There's some interesting research on the Canadian registry and sentencing here. I don't know how long this guy keeps stuff up.
http://bpoc.blogspot.com/

Bye
Jack

What does any of this have to do with senctencing? The government wants to restrict your right to own a firearm, or a class of firearm. Whatever argument that is put forward, the semantics, the end result is the same if it is allowed to happen...and it cannot be allowed to be so. In the US everything would be OK if automatic weapons where banned, which they have been for all practical purposes for the average citizen...but we have seen no end to the further demands to ban, or otherwise restrict ownership, of other classes of weapons. There will be no end to the demands until all ownership of firearms that have any meaningful purpose have been enacted...then you can be like the people of England, that don't feel like the hassle of all the permits and evaluations, and talk about how cool airguns are.

The NATIONAL gun registry is failed joke, yet it continues. The reasons behind it are as false and disingenous as the program itself. The fact that is an abject failure and continues to be funded, hundredfold beyond it's anticipated cost, is a the VERY reason you must see the progression of what is really happening. The first step in confiscation is registration...you have seen that no matter what it costs for a failed program that it MUST go on..so as to ensure the first step remains in place...the second step is confiscation of a certain class of firearms that "no one really needs", 5-10 years later no one will really "need" any firearms because the only "legitimate" use for firearms is hunting...right?..and no one "needs" to hunt in our advanced society with easy, make that free, availability of food. No need to discuss self defense against the heinous criminals that the government puts back into society, in the name of tolerance, or the government itself..in the most extreme case.

With Canada's continued close tie with Great Britain, I would assume some of this movement is...'supported' by evidences gained in the GB experiment with doing away with guns?

Does anyone have any idea of the statistics (official or otherwise) regarding guns and crime in GB/England/London? One would think our northern neighbors would have something to which to point as a positive result from that kind of legislation.

Google "England handgun" and all sorts of documentation shows up.

From my brief understanding, there is quite a bit of chatter that the GB laws have not helped. But, perhaps there's evidence to the contrary?

Anyway, not to move the discussion away from Canada, but there are certainly reasons to look at the parallels.

jonas

Paul martin and his band of theives ,are not going to answer for the liberal sponsership program . This is where they fattened some of their own pockets with your tax dollars.
Now they are trying to snow the big urban centres in beliving a total ban on hand guns is going to solve the hand gun crimes in cities like Toronto.

(One big snow storm or snow job of 2005 I say!)
The liberals just need to ride it out cause they are back in like flint! Well it might be true I fear.

You need to do something now with your vote. Just do not think the county has come this far because of Liberal leadership. No the liberals were just in power and came along for the car ride.

The gun band.

It really is just an excuse to disarm the citizens of Canada , rather than deal at all with the issues we are having in this country with gang warfare and drugs, illegal guns ,and the legal gun trade from the states.

Instead we need a program in affect that deals with gun related crime that should be dealth with in the courts . The Message should be clear. DO THE CRIME /PAY THE TIME

Now to ban hand guns, which now are only owned in this country by collectors and target shooters ,related to a range , is not going to get an illegal fire arm off the streets.

Then what is next ?

Well soon it is our rifles and shot guns It will be game over for the shooting sports , hunting as we known it .

It really is the goverments agenda to disarm it citizens.
So the conseratives are not making too much noise and I fear that we are returning paul martin and his band free to fatten thier pockets with your money in some back room again.
What choice do we have / we have no other direction?
Why are we havin' an election ?

The country otherwise as far as the dollar goes has done well under the liberal rule.On the other hand it wants to take away our right to legal gun ownership , and also tick off every good American to our south.
Are American /Canadain relations good?

The liberal goverment under Paul Martin is destroying that too!
It is not the will of the people by the people.Harper does not seem to stand out in front with a plan.
He seems to react instead of act as a leader . then He just might need some good people around him.

Now I propose a a protest vote for the NDP.

Yes we need to protest in this election .
Throw some water on Harper's head . "Get up and go or get out." We need to place our vote somewhere.

And I do not care a "root canal" if the election was on Christmas Day. Have Mercy on our poor souls if we go just Liberal .
Just give us a reason to vote , instead going to vote ' cause we are angery.

Hopefully the NDP will form a goverment with the liberals and act as a watch dog over our tax dollars.

As far as the total ban on hand guns -well it is coming. Then they are coming for the long guns too.
VOTE LIBERAL , AND NEXT YEAR, the only deer you will be eating is a road kill, unless you can out run one with your knife and fork in hand.

To our freinds in the south , I hope you all have been watching . first we had to register , now we need to be turning them in. We got into this getting the goverment start the process while the gun owners were divided , and thought it would never come to their door.

Well you say " it could never happen in the US"WELL THAT IS WHAT MOST CANADAINS THOUGHT TOO!! :confused:

LISTEN UP! :mad: :mad:

Happy

What does any of this have to do with senctencing?

To the politicians, NOTHING! Because they can't (or won't) see the link between a revolving prison door and crime, and I wanted to know if Canada's system was similar to the US, and it sounds as if it is. I can't remember the actual numbers from studies in the US, but it was something like....20% of the total number of criminals committ 80% of the total number of crimes. In other words, logic says focus on criminal control - mainly repeat offenders - instead of gun control. But gun control is viewed as easier by lazy politicians. So, vote them out.

Thanks for the link, I have put permanent links on the sidebar to all the posts I did regarding gun control.

Kcih, the problem is that it has EVERYTHING to do with convictions, because they are taking the guns from innocent people, not the criminals, while only 20% of homicides result in jail time. Illegal handguns are the ones doing the killing, not the registered ones. Check out the PDF file ( you need adobe, there is a link on the sidebar for that as well ) and it shows many many countries that implimented a gun registry and crime skyrocketed....England, australia, etc. The problem is that criminals have no fear of our justice system.

Illegal handguns are the ones doing the killing, not the registered ones.

Not to pick nits, but I have yet to witness a gun kill anything without human intervention. :(

Are criminals (in prison) allowed to vote in Canada? When politicians are considering votes and winning or losing, sometimes they don't care where a vote comes from. Some of the states in the US allow this, and it was a big deal in the 2004 election here in the US. Made for a lot of hand-wringing between the two (main) parties here. If the pro-gun (or neutral?) party in Canada successfully plays this (if it's even at play) against the anti-gun party, it may help turn public opinion.

Yes cons can vote, thanks to our Supreme Court.

This is for Harry:

From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User)
Subject: NDP ON BANNING HANDGUNS, SEMI-AUTOMATICS & MORE

JOE COMARTIN, NDP MP: NO, DON, I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE BAN ON HANDGUNS BUT TO SAY TO THE CANADIAN PEOPLE TO THE CITY OF TORONTO AND ACTUALLY THE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE HAVING REALLY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH CRIME, GUN CRIME, THAT IT'S A PANACEA IS REALLY MISLEADING THEM.
SOURCE: CBC Newsworld - Thursday, December 8 2005 - 17:00 (Local) POLITICS.
DON NEWMAN'S PANEL DISCUSSION WITH VIC TOEWS, ROY CULLEN AND JOE COMARTIN.


BRAD LAVIGNE, NDP WAR ROOM STRATEGIST: IN OUR 2004 PLATFORM WE SUPPORTED AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON ALL HANDGUNS ON SEMI-AUTOMATIC AND AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, LIKE OF COURSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, JACK LAYTON HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT BEFORE HE WAS LEADER OF OUR PARTY AS A CITY COUNCILLOR IN THE CITY OF TORONTO. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE THE LAST ELECTION AND WE WILL BE COMING OUT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE CRIME PLATFORM IN THE COMING
DAYS.
SOURCE: CBC Newsworld - Thursday, December 8 2005 - 10:30 (Local)
POLITICS. DON NEWMAN'S PANEL WITH SUSAN MURRAY, BRAD LAVIGNE AND SANDRA BUCKLER.


JACK LAYTON'S 'GUN FREE ZONE' PROPOSAL: Toronto should establish a "gun-control zone" to help stem the proliferation of weapons in the city, a public meeting was told last night. "We don't do target practice in the home so there's no reason to keep [guns] there," Toronto councillor Jack Layton told a meeting of the city's special committee on firearms control.
Under Mr. Layton's plan the storage of firearms would be strictly regulated in the city. The plan calls for firearms to be stored in locked armouries,
or in recreational facilities in rural areas. Storage of firearms in private homes and businesses would be forbidden.
SOURCE: Globe and Mail, Wednesday, March 20, 1991, Page A2

I am just "Hoping" Harper and the boys get out with a message , that: "Crime with guns /you need to pay." This is the only way to solve this issue with guns.

Lets hear what would be on the agenda

Then lets get honest . What really is behind the proposed hand gun ban.

Registration is being proved as the first step to losing them. It is not just the proposed hand gun ban , but look what happened to all the prohibited rifles , that where allowed to be used at gun clubs . here again with the sweep of the pen , they were all banned.

All these firarms ever did was to distroy a piece of paper, as do most legal hand guns in Canada.

My fear is the Nato Agenda to rid ourselves of small arms. This is the bottom line.

Let the Liberals /NDP / conseratives deny this .

Lets have the supreme court uphold the legal gun ownership as a right.

For the good of the whole do we wipe out the 80 % that are lawbiding gun owners or do we wipe out the twenty % that do grime with illegal arms.

I think we need to bestole some real fear in that twenty persent. Not on the shoulders of legal gun owners.

[QUOTE=kciH] In the US everything would be OK if automatic weapons where banned, which they have been for all practical purposes for the average citizen...but we have seen no end to the further demands to ban, or otherwise restrict ownership, of other classes of weapons.

Not trying to stray too far from the subject matter, but I have to take issue with the above statement. Our right to bear arms was meant to protect us from the government. I consider myself a fair shot with a bolt action rifle, but what can a people possibly do with those type of weapons against a goverment that is so much better armed? Not only that, but a government bent on keeping the people in that detriment. Just food for thought, but I don't believe that any firearms should be banned in the USA.

Oddly enough, the criminals favor the Liberal party as well, who are against set minimum sentences, and are taking all the weapons away from those who might stand up against them. Granted, most people I know haven't registered their rifles, but give it time and proof of registration will be required along with the FAC when getting a deer liscence and such.

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. - Mahtma Gandhi, Indian Political Leader

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying ... establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. - Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report

Well I must say I have read and enjoyed your points of view. I have not followed much of the election as I have been busy. Some of the Liberal hog wash Add s on the Tv , tend for me just to tick me all the more . Just trying to disscredit the other guy instead of coming to the table with something positive, went out the door at our house long ago while we were kids. Liberals Grow up for Gods sake.

Harper seems to have a handle on things that need to be done as far as the hand gun issue. From little I have read , maybe he will not be able to serve on all the election promises "Once" he looks in the piggy bank the liberals are going to hand over next Monday night.
All Canadains vote Conserative first , then if you must NDP. Send the liberals out on the streets on Cities like Toronto and maybe they will vision what really needs to be gone instead of the BS the Martins are trying to push down our throats.
Liberals say we all need to hand in our guns for the good of the whole.We have problem in the cities with hand guns . I would say few of any guns in the cites are legal . So a toatal ban would only hurt the rural or legal gun owner .
A total ban on all small arms will not take the guns off the streets of Toronto nor will the liberal idea of making street drugs legal.We can argue points to and fro. but History will show us , that being soft in the courts is not helping any one . we need to deal with youth , gangs and drugs.

Monday take some time every one and
"Stand up For Canada"

Well said, Harry. As of now it looks like the gun-grabbing Liberals are going down hard, but it's not over. I'll celebrate with beer and popcorn when the fat lady's done singing.

Bye
Jack

Jack,
When is your election? Sounds as if the pre-election indications are that the Liberals will lose, but that doesn't mean things will get better, but won't get worse?

The election is next Monday. The polls, for what they're worth, indicate a strong Conservative minority, with a chance at a majority. The Conservatives have promised to kill the long gun registry, and relax some of the more rediculous restrictions. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Bye
Jack

Arizona has it written in its Constitution that they cant ban firearms and that means even the Cities have to abide by it.

:mad: A liberl is just a communsit by another name! :mad:

I have my fingers crossed as well.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-01-22T204843Z_01_N19193346_RTRUKOC_0_US-POLITICS.xml&rpc=22

This link says the liberals are on their way out.

As we say here in the US of A..."vote early and vote often!"

And a very serious wish of good luck to all our Canadian brothers in arms.

Conservative's are now more and more popular in Quebec..... :)
GO!!!!! HARPER GO!!!!!

Jack,
When is your election? Sounds as if the pre-election indications are that the Liberals will lose, but that doesn't mean things will get better, but won't get worse?

Today.

If there is a ban, they will no doubt do some sort of buyback, so I'm planning on going to the states and buying a bunch of broken, rusted etc handguns and bringing them up here to have bought back.
Should be interesting. I don't think they will have the manpower to do inspections and the such - as it is, over half of the provincial governments have refused to fund anything with the registration system - in several provinces, if the government wants to prosecute someone for a gun registration, etc, offence, the federal government has to send someone out and pay for them.
Of course, we've had registration for handguns up here since 1934, so that gives you an idea of how amazingly effective registration has been in preventing crime (Not very, and people can kill each other without using handguns - or even rifles - firearms are used in only 14% of homicides (which include suicides) - thank you very much)

As for getting better, maybe? The budget for the registration program is out of control (it was supposed to cost 2 million, they are at 2 BILLION dollars right now and the registration people admit that a large number (40% perhaps) of firearms are not registered. If the conservatives win, the purse strings might be tightened a bit (seriously, I know you're dealing with government workers and all, but 1000% over budget?). I don't expect that it will be cut completly, but I don't see the funding not being cut at all if anyone but the liberals win a majority. As people have said, that is somewhat unlikely.

As we say here in the US of A..."vote early and vote often!"


Isn't that just Chicago? ;)
/I'll be here all week, please, tip your hostess and try the veal.

Well, the Conservatives won a weak minority, so there'll be no handgun ban. The long gun registry hopefully will die from cash starvation. Gary Breitkreutz think they can kill some of the nuisance regulations by Order-In-Council. My Conservative MP, Andrew Scheer in Regina-Qu'Appelle, got back in and knows my views on gun laws.

I don't have any beer in the house, but I had a wee dram of Scotch with the popcorn.

Bye
Jack

Jack,
congrats on this ray of hope, hopefully your politicians actually know how to live up to their campaign promises.

I hope it was good Scotch.

Steven.

I am happy for our northern brothers and sisters with this good news of the liberals being placed in a minority position.

It might be a small ray of light for your freedoms, but its still a ray of light...I only hope it gets bigger. :)

D

Well I had higher hopes for Harper . There has been a lot of mud slinging ,and from what I heard what the new govwerment had on the slate was far from the truth. A lot of people apparently, bought the slang.
Folks in Ontario voted Liberal Aka "Toronto"
Harpers first job probaby will be to calm the folks over here that he is not going to kill our Health care and drive the country into dept.
One very good reason to bring out the Rye again for the second toast was news that Paul Martin was going to step down as leader .
Finally the man is going something good for his country.
Happy

I have been following all of this as best I can. I know this has been pretty "white knuckle" for all of you.
Will say here that I am pleased by your gain. All I can offer is my support. You have that.
Keep pushing.
Cheezywan

Well, the Conservatives won a weak minority, so there'll be no handgun ban.

Congrats Canadians! Is there any post-election analysis that indicates that the gun issue was a key issue (that the liberal media will dare to report, I might add)?

Courtesty of Ipsos™ polling wizard Darrel Bricker© and Warren Kinsella .

"Gomery, guns, gaffes, Goodale" — on why the Liberals lost, Darrel says. "They wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't called the Gomery Commission."

I'll try to expand on the gun issue later, but it did hurt the Liberals.

Bye
Jack

Congrats Canadians! Is there any post-election analysis that indicates that the gun issue was a key issue (that the liberal media will dare to report, I might add)?

You'd be surprised, in the run up, there were several articles dealing with guns, gun control, etc. I recall even seeing an entire page of the paper dealing with it and there were quite a few smaller articles written by people who enjoy the outdoors - including some of the traditional, left leaning tree hugging groups, which was a bit of a surprise, albeit a welcome one. There was virtually nothing mentioned about gomery, goodale, et al.

What is kinda funny is that although there is talk of banning firearms here, up in the North (the way up there, bloody cold all year round, polar bears eat you for food North), the Canadian govt freely gives out full auto C7's to their "rangers" - basically civilians who know the area and volunteer to help the army in case something happens up there (downed plane/satelite, invasion, etc)
A C7 is basically an m4 with a scope on it, I believe the barrel is a wee bit longer too, but they are one of the few people in canada who are able to carry full auto firearms and don't have to deal with a lot of the bs that the rest of the country has to.

The gun control issue wasn't the major factor in the Liberal defeat, but it did influence this election and several before it. Liberal gun control legislation in 1978 helped the Progressive Conservatives under Prime Ministers Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney win. Mulroney and his Justice Minister Kim Campbell couldn't leave well enough alone and brought in mandatory training and re-training and a long list of restricted and prohibited firearms. This, combined with other factors like the attempt to re-write the Constitution through the Charlottetown Accord lead to the destruction of the Progressive Conservative Party, lead by now Prime Minister Kim Campbell, in the 1993 election. The Liberals didn't win big, as the Progressive Conservative vote went to the new right-wing Reform Party in Western Canada and to the separatist Bloc Quebecois Party in Quebec.

Liberal Justice Minister Alan Rock legislated (Bill C-68) long gun registration and the prohibition of handguns of .25 and .32 calibre, and those with barrels of less than 105mm in length. As this is just over 4 inches, it catches a lot of fine handguns. This legislation was fought tooth-and-nail, despite the fact that Canadian gun owners don't have a nation wide organization like the NRA. In fact the various small organizations were often at cross-purposes to each other.

Initially the Reform Party wanted nothing to do with gun owners, but the Reform Member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) realized what gun control really meant, and has been Bill C-68s strongest opponent ever since. He finally got the Auditor-General to investigate the gun registry. Her report on the billion dollar cost overrun in the Registry woke up the public and made it realize that something was rotten in Ottawa. Prime Minister Paul Martin may have won a majority in the 2004 election if he had promised to scrap the registry. He came up 20 seats short. Saskatchewan has 14 out of 308 ridings, and the Liberals missed winning 3 of them by a few hundred votes each. If he'd won a majority then there wouldn't be an election now.

Anne (the Screecher) McLellan took over the Justice Department from Alan Rock, who went on to mess up other portfolios. Most of the cost overrun happened under her watch. Later the registry was transferred to the Department of the Solicitor-General. Prime Minister Martin appointed McLennan Solicitor-General when he took over from Chrétien. Mistake.

Martin did promise to reform the registry and sent Ontario Member of Parliament Albina Guarnieri out west to investigate. She returned to Ottawa with a number of recommendations. McLennan let out a horrible screech when she saw it and it went into File 13.

Martin started this campaign with his proposed handgun ban. That gave a sleeping dog a boot in the rear, as many people had got over their anger with the registry and it put the lie to the Liberal's claim that registration does not equal confiscation. The handgun ban didn't fly with the voters as several polls revealed. This also opened the matter of Property Rights, which were left out of Canada's Charter of Rights. Not a good way to start an election campaign.

The guns on the street attack ad was next. The military and the veterans went ballistic, viewing it as an insult, and everyone wrote parodies of it.

The Ad

Stephen Harper actually announced
he wants to increase military presence
in our cities.

Canadian cities.

Soldiers with guns.

In our cities.

In Canada.

We did not
make this up.

- committee to re-elect
Paul Martin, 2006

A response.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003314.html

Here's a couple of parodies on the ad.

Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.

In our cities.

In Canada.

A soldier.

He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey.

With chipotle sauce.

In Canada.

We're not making this stuff up.

Another:

Paul Martin said he'd ban handguns because they kill people.

But he won't make Saskatchewan ban them.

In Saskatchewan guns are free to kill people.

Saskatchewan is mostly Conservative.

Paul Martin will let Conservatives die in Saskatchewan.

Because guns can kill people. In Saskatchewan.

Paul Martin will let them.

He said so.

I am not making this up.

There are other issues working against the Liberals, of course, but that will take a book.
Every election has an editorial cartoon that defines it.


Bye

Jack

Well, the results of your election are encouraging. I just wonder if those that lost (and the party that they belonged to), in part due to the gun issue, will realize it. Seems many of our politicians (or wanna be's or has-beens) in the US, and their party have been incredibly dense in their association of election loss and gun issues.

I like the parodies....quite sarcastic and stingy!

Our press has been reluctant to attribute election losses to gun issues, which in actuality, is an advantage to the gun owners, as long as gun owners stay engaged in the voting process.

Can you please try to explain the beer and popcorn, since there seems to be a reason for such a celebration now

Hehe, I moved up here only a few days ago and have spent most of the time unpacking instead of watching TV. Sounds like the ads were a hoot. I wonder if Air Farce will take them on (I hope that show is still on).
Your attachment link doesn't seem to work btw, but I don't think it is your fault.

OK, about beer & popcorn. The Conservatives announced that they's pay parents with preschoolers $100 a month per kid and find your own daycare. The Liberal (and NDP) plan is state run subsidized daycare, which would be useful to about 1 in 8 families. There's an unwritten rule for Liberal schemes that at least 50% of the budget gets spent on administration too.

Some media type interviews Liberal backroom boy Scott Reid and he says that parents will spent the Conservatives $100/month on beer & popcorn. Now this is pretty insulting to parents and a smart campaign manager would promise to draw and quarter any Liberal who mentioned beer & popcorn again. But, Liberal backroom boy John Duffy gets on the CTV Sunday news program Question Period and insists that parents will spend the $100 on beer & popcorn. :rolleyes: Some campaign gaffes blow over, but this one didn't die.

So we celebrated the Conservative win with beer & popcorn. :D

Bye
Jack

Thanks, I got the cartoon up now. I thought it was working, but I guess it was loading out of local memory instead of the server.

Air Farce is still on, Fridays at 8:00 PM here. It's not near as good as it used to be. John Morgan who had the real funny bone, retired and passed away shortly after. There's one really obnoxious twerp on it now, name of Alan Parks.

BTW kciH, it was Johnnie Walker Black. As the old Scots said, "There's whiskey, and there's good whiskey, but there's nae bad whiskey". ;)

Bye
Jack

I live in PA, Lynn Swann, retired Pittsburg Steeler and African American is running for the republican (conservative?) govenor nominatin against a former Lt. Gov by the name of Bill Scranton, who is from a wealthy family and white. Anyway, Mr. Scranton's campaign manager was on the state cable channel and he was trying to cast Mr. Scranton as the polical outsider (did I mention he was former Lt. Gov.) To prove his point, he called Lynn Swann the "rich white guy in this race" That got him fired real fast

I like the cartoon....one bite of popcorn per glass of beer! Seems about right. :p

OK, about beer & popcorn. The Conservatives announced that they's pay parents with preschoolers $100 a month per kid and find your own daycare. The Liberal (and NDP) plan is state run subsidized daycare, which would be useful to about 1 in 8 families. There's an unwritten rule for Liberal schemes that at least 50% of the budget gets spent on administration too.

Some media type interviews Liberal backroom boy Scott Reid and he says that parents will spent the Conservatives $100/month on beer & popcorn. Now this is pretty insulting to parents and a smart campaign manager would promise to draw and quarter any Liberal who mentioned beer & popcorn again. But, Liberal backroom boy John Duffy gets on the CTV Sunday news program Question Period and insists that parents will spend the $100 on beer & popcorn. :rolleyes: Some campaign gaffes blow over, but this one didn't die.

So we celebrated the Conservative win with beer & popcorn. :D

Bye
Jack

I think I would prefer Jack Danials and Pig Skins. ;) ;)

Lee L.

I just got this "NRA Alert" via email:

"ANTI-GUNNERS DEFEATED IN CANADIAN ELECTIONS

On Monday, Canada's anti-gun Prime Minister Paul Martin and the ruling Liberal Party were ousted in the country's federal elections, bringing an end to the Liberal Party's 12-year reign. The Conservative Party, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, will now take over the government's control.

Outgoing Prime Minister Martin's scandal- plagued administration gained notoriety for its ill-advised gun registration program that has cost the country more than two billion dollars and, of course, did nothing to reduce Canada's escalating crime rate. This registration fiasco, combined with Martin's recent call for an all-out ban on all legally-owned handguns, rallied Canada's lawful gun owners who helped turn the tide for the Conservative party.

As we've seen time and again in our own country, gun bans do nothing to reduce violent crime. Internationally, Australia's and Great Britain's gun bans and confiscations have proven to be miserable failures, with violent crime rates escalating in the wake of their flawed programs. Hopefully the Canadian election results (coming fast on the heels of Brazil's recent rejection of a national gun ban), will serve as a wake-up call to politicians who think they can build careers by dismantling gun owners' rights."