Sunday, April 16, 2006

Kill the gun registry

After all we have heard and said about this embarrassing waste of tax dollars, can you believe we are actually asking if they will kill the gun registry?

Failure to kill the registry will only embolden those who still tell the lie that the gun registry actually fights crime. I can't believe we're even talking about it.

The question is when. The answer is unclear, for a variety of administrative, legal and political reasons.

"This is a minority government," says David Tomlinson, head of the Edmonton-based National Firearms Association.

"They cannot change the firearms control laws unless they have a majority vote, and it's going to take time to assemble a majority vote . . . . I don't anticipate this is going to go down in a hell of a hurry."

***
Good grief. If the gun registry had prevented one single shooting...

21 comments:

John Murney said...

I'd laugh if the Reformers never got around to scraping the registry.

David MacLean said...

It would be like the liberals NOT scrapping free trade or the GST. In other words, it would ensure electoral dominance for years to come. Haha.

Robert McClelland said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert McClelland said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert McClelland said...

How do you know that none of the more than 16,000 people who've either been refused or had their licence revoked were prevented from shooting someone?

Maryjane said...

Yes, how do you measure a crime that has not been commited?

Anonymous said...

It's impossible to proove a negative: can we agree that the resistry has been an extremely unwise use of a billion dollars?

maryjane said...

anon... unwise? Sure but in the big scheme of things, a billion over 10 yrs. is chump change. Seeing as how Garry Brietkruez has made a career out of this single issue, I wonder if the cost of his employment is included in that figure?

Anonymous said...

The gun registry would not have prevented Marc Lupine from owning a gun. He had a FAC and firearms saftey course and a legal gun.
When a Hell's Angel charged with murder can register a gun I guess anyone can.
The 2 million dollar estimate was just a tad bit low. Maryjane, Gary's salary will not be included in the Auditor Generals report as it is paid even to MPs that sit on their duff and let government waste continue.
Hitler's registry was very successful as was Austalia's. In Australia most of the guns are now owned by criminals. Can you defend youself with your bare hands?

rtw said...

Maryjane I just researched Saskatchewan's debt for 2003 and 2004
2003 debt of 9.817 billion
2004 debt of 10.134 billion
I guess the stabalization fund doesn't fool the bankers
What happened to the 1991 debt of 3.316 billion Grant devine left us. I guess it had puppies from the ndippers

Anonymous said...

marc Lapine? His real name was Garbil.... and he shouted "Alah Akbar" as he shot: this is factual, look up the initial press reports in the days after the shootings (dec 6, I think in '86): somehow the incident was politicised and subjected to political correctness, and the result was a misguided and ill conceived registry for law abiding citizens.
and maryjane, I find your efforts to excuse a billion dollars as "chump change" deplorable.

Anonymous said...

The SK NDP have only added a few billion to the provincial debt in the last few years: that's chump change.

Maryjane said...

anon 6:59am...provincial per capita cost of subsidizing Conservative voting, CTF supporting farmers over the 10 yrs. of the gun registry:$4000.00 plus( not counting federal contribution)
Per capita cost of gun registry: $34.00 give or take: CHUMP CHANGE.
rtw, anon 7:07 am.... This from a column published on Wed., Oct. 17, 1990 in the Leader Post, Dale Eisler:
"The fact is that since the Devine Tories came to power in 1982, they have been a scourge on the fiscal affairs of the province. In the course of the last 8 yrs., the province has steadily sunk into a quagmire of debt that is threatening the very financial integrity of the province.
THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED DEFICIT, WHICH IS MADE UP OF THE ANNUAL DEFICITS IN THE GOVT'S OPERATING BUDGETS EACH YEAR, IS NOW APPROXIMATELY $4.4 billion, plus or minus a hundred million or so. In 1982, when the Tories came to power, THAT DEBT DID NOT EXIST.
At the same time, the total provincial debt has gone from $3.3 billion, as of March 31, 1982, to $12.7 billion!!!!! at the end of March this year(1990). The TOTAL DEBT represents all accumulated budget deficits and the borrowings of Crown corporations.
Another way to look at this is as follows: all govt's., from 1905 to the fall of the NDP in '82, managed to accumulate a debt of $3.3 billion. Since 1982, the Devine gov't. has presided over an increase in the total debt fron 3.3 to 12.7 billion. Or in other words, a debt that took 78 yrs. to create has increased FOUR FOLD IN 8 YRS. of TORY RULE.
At the same time the Devine gov't. has divested itself of assets thru privatization. So, while the debt has gone up, provincial assets have dwindled. The result is that the province's total equity is now $3.4 billion in THE HOLE!!!!!"

LEST WE FORGET!
It is truly astonishing how far we have come since that dark decade of CONSERVATIVE(Sask. Party) rule. You fellas still want to defend that crap?

Anonymous said...

maryjane: what was AB's debt 10 years ago: more than SK's.
A billion is ok to waste because farmers got more? : this does not make sense to me, and it smacks or malice again, maryjane.
well done with the 16 year old quote: I wonder what war room you belong to? hmmm... mean, nasty, prejudiced against farmers and business people, blaming all our woes on someone that left the stage 16 years ago...
In any event, all before my time, and I do not believe you: as stated above, your malice makes a victim of the truth.

Maryjane said...

anon... Your ignorance makes YOU a victim. Educate yourself. The truth shall set you free. Jethro Bodine could balance the books in Alberta. Sask. requires a somewhat more deft hand. Stockwell Day was treasurer of Alberta, wasn't he?

rtw said...

Maryjane
Dale Eisler should checked out Stats Canada before saying the debt was 12.7 billion in 92. Possibly he was counting debt per capita which includes federal debt. It has been said that if you repeat something over and over again it becomes truth. Well you have convinced yourself.
I don't trust a goverment that doesn't count or fund civil servant pensions and uses a fiscal stabilization accounting method. In the 80's they called it a heritage fund which had no cash. Same crap same smell

Anonymous said...

hey rtw, I wouldn;t be surprised if she jsut made it up.
And maryjane, it is a fact that AB debt was greater than SK's 10 years ago: what say you to that?

Maryjane said...

Anon..."it is a fact that AB debt was greater than SK's 10 yrs. ago" Not if you measure it in any real way as in per capita or debt to gdp ratio. Even Maclean would have to agree. What say I? I say you're full of it.

Anonymous said...

maryjane, 10 years ago Alberta's debt was greter than SK's. period. Thanks for finally admitting it, although the one full of it is you, with your "debt to gdp ratio" or "per capita". Alberta's debt was greater than Saskatchewan, but Alberta has paid their debt off, your NDP colleagues (booses?) have increased the size of the debt, in both obvious and hidden ways, while shrinking the population (your "per capita" debt).

Sask.Taxpayers Federation said...

Way to go Mary Jane. Very to the point and backed up with the facts. Not just rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

stf, maryjane admitte that I was right: 10 years ago, Alberta had more debt than Saskatgchewan. She then made some lame excuses. grow-up, old-timer!

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box