Monday, September 20, 2010

Fix the registry, don't abolish it

If as expected the "private member's" bill to abolish the long gun registry goes down to defeat (as I hope it does), then I think it's up to the Opposition parties not just to explain why they voted it down but how they're going to fix the remaining problems with the system while balancing rural and urban interests in advancing gun control.    The Conservatives calling those who support the registry "Toronto elites" is pretty rich, especially considering Harper went to a high school in -- oh my God -- TORONTO!

Perhaps Harper has forgotten that many of those so-called elites actually go hunting on the weekends or for week long outfitting trips?   Actually helping out their rural brothers and sisters in developing their economy?   Oh, I guess he has forgotten about that.   Or the huge license fees that the provinces and territories collect from legal hunters.

Rather than just talking tough on crime, how about also fighting its causes and actually putting money in to fix the broken windows to reduce the number of places criminals have to hide?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.


Anonymous said...

The oppositon parties had more than a decade to try and fix it. They couldn't. There is no reason to believe they will succeed now.

Unknown said...

What needs to be fixed?
If a person wants to own firearms they must have a valid firearm licence. Screening must be done.

If a person is not responsible enough to renew their firearm licence is that person really responsible enough to handle firearms?

Registering one's firearm is a one time deal, whenever a person sells trades or gives their fiream to someone, the data on the firearm certificate only has to be changed.

Anonymous said...

I really don't think it is up to the Opposition parties to "fix" the registry just because this bill gets voted down. That type of logic validates as "in need of change" any topic regarding which legislation is proposed.

As a parallel, imagine if a government proposed the criminalization of abortion. The bill would (I sure hope) get voted down. That isn't justification for the government then to say "Ok, you said no to criminalizing abortion. Negotiate with us to change the current legislation."