I'd expect more from the Calgary Herald

TomCanuck · #1 10-28-2012, 01:33 PM

What a load of BS!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/RC...528/story.html

It's worse than most of the garbage the CBC puts out there.

riden · #2 10-28-2012, 01:43 PM

I think CBC has the exact same article on their website

hillbillyreefer · #3 10-28-2012, 01:48 PM

It's a Canadian Press buttwipe piece. Actually it asks some good questions. How much will it save? Why did they pass legislation supporting the UNs marking scheme while on the other hand getting rid of the registry? The Cons really aren't gun owners friends, they are just the lesser of the evils we have to deal with.

Toews couldn't run a soup kitchen.

Elk Chaser · #4 10-28-2012, 01:49 PM

The savings won't be this year.

Those who worked for the firearms registry were federal employees and as federal employees the gov't has to follow the termination process. These people will be paid for at least another 6 months, then there is the education benefits and relocation funding for those who find federal employment elsewhere in Canada.

In the long run there will be savings but not this year.

TomCanuck · #5 10-28-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riden

I think CBC has the exact same article on their website

Right you are. It's a CP peice (of cr@p). Good thing Canadian tax payers dump all that money into the CBC, so it can buy stories like this garbage.

Disgusting!

hillbillyreefer · #6 10-28-2012, 01:53 PM

Cheadle is a raging lefty lunatic, anything right of Stalin is bad in this guys mind.

TomCanuck · #7 10-28-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

It's a Canadian Press buttwipe piece. Actually it asks some good questions. How much will it save? Why did they pass legislation supporting the UNs marking scheme while on the other hand getting rid of the registry? The Cons really aren't gun owners friends, they are just the lesser of the evils we have to deal with.

Toews couldn't run a soup kitchen.

As it stands, the UN marking scheme will have no teeth. This could change in the future, but I can't see how at the moment. The costs would dwarf registration, and the back-lash would be extreme in my view.

If not the Cons, then who, pray tell are gun owners friends?

kmacisaac · #8 10-28-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elk Chaser

The savings won't be this year.

Those who worked for the firearms registry were federal employees and as federal employees the gov't has to follow the termination process. These people will be paid for at least another 6 months, then there is the education benefits and relocation funding for those who find federal employment elsewhere in Canada.

In the long run there will be savings but not this year.

My thoughts as well...It's the government and they have to find a place to put the people employed before they finally close this department. Until this happens, the LGR will still be a hole in public wallet. At least there is a light at the end of the tunnel and millions more won't be poured into this nonsense.

hillbillyreefer · #9 10-28-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

As it stands, the UN marking scheme will have no teeth. This could change in the future, but I can't see how at the moment. The costs would dwarf registration, and the back-lash would be extreme in my view.

If not the Cons, then who, pray tell are gun owners friends?

Passing anything that allows the UN power over our sovereignty is scary. Passing anything allowing the UN control over our legally acquired and owned private property is downright treasonous. It is my understanding that an order in council is all that is needed to put teeth into the UN gun marking scheme. What do you think the first thing the dippers or libs would do after being elected?

The Cons are the best of the worst, they aren't our friends but they need gunowners to help keep them in power. Firearms owners don't have any friends in Canadian politics.

TomCanuck · #10 10-28-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Passing anything that allows the UN power over our sovereignty is scary. Passing anything allowing the UN control over our legally acquired and owned private property is downright treasonous. It is my understanding that an order in council is all that is needed to put teeth into the UN gun marking scheme. What do you think the first thing the dippers or libs would do after being elected?

The Cons are the best of the worst, they aren't our friends but they need gunowners to help keep them in power. Firearms owners don't have any friends in Canadian politics.

The original, "passing of power", was done in 2004 (not by the Cons). I agree though, that when the Libs/Dippers get back into power (hopefully many years from now), they will no doubt make life more difficult for gun owners.

Any gun, I've bought new, already has a serial number. I have an old Hiawatha .22, and I used to have a Mossberg that had no serial number.

Without a long gun registry, what is the danger of having a serial number on a long gun? There's no requirement for a UN specific serial number that I know of.

I know that I won't be taking part in any new long gun registry the Left might bring in, in the future. At least not completely. There can be no doubt that registration will lead to confiscations.

hillbillyreefer · #11 10-28-2012, 03:12 PM

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/20...rs313-eng.html

More info on the subject.

The UN has been pushing this agenda for decades. I suspect once they have all firearms worldwide marked with their unique identifier, the push will be on for a worldwide registry, leading to disarmament of ALL civilians. (UN, IANSA, Coalition for Gun control, Brady Campaign, just to name a few)

The UN will have problems in countries like Canada due to the fact we have already proven the registry doesn't work, and have dismantled it. The civil disobedience will be even more massive the second time a registry is attempted.

My views may be a bit tinfoil hatish, but the UN and the dictators that run it want total civilian disarmament.

huntinstuff · #12 10-28-2012, 03:37 PM

The cost of running the registry was between 1.5 and 4 million a year?

Lies like that should come with jail time.

You cant run a Boston Pizza on 1.5 million per year, but the govt can run a nationwide registry on that??????

Absolute garbage.

TomCanuck · #13 10-28-2012, 04:17 PM

In my view, Left-wing media activism, is by far the biggest threat to gun ownership in this nation. The power of the so called fifth estate in Western nations is becoming too great. It's at the point where political leaders consult them with regards to policy decisions.

Tax funded organizations should be made to follow an apolitical (neutral) line.

Instead we have severely biased garbage such as this article thrown at us.

Hagalaz · #14 10-28-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Passing anything that allows the UN power over our sovereignty is scary. Passing anything allowing the UN control over our legally acquired and owned private property is downright treasonous.

Totally agreed.

Why should UN members from Cameroon, North Korea, Sierra Leone, & Bahrain have any say in what happens here in Canada. They can barely manage to keep their own country's heads above water.

When diplomats from second and third world nations can make law in another sovereign nation, you know that trouble is coming.

mooseknuckle · #15 10-28-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

The cost of running the registry was between 1.5 and 4 million a year?

Lies like that should come with jail time.

You cant run a Boston Pizza on 1.5 million per year, but the govt can run a nationwide registry on that??????

Absolute garbage.

Agreed! I'd guess more like bi-weekly.

And really that's a pretty vague assessment 1.5-4? Ahhhh what's the difference it's only 2.5 mil!! Lol.

CaberTosser · #16 10-29-2012, 08:39 AM

Those numbers separating resistration costs from licensing costs were rather suspect as well. They're insinuating that somehow the once every five years licensing was more expensive than the dozens of firearms people might register and transfer in such a period of time. That's 20-odd times the postage (I'm using my first 5 years of licensed gun ownership for my reference number, btw), cumulatively more time than whatever my background check took ( that costing probably fell to base RCMP budget or the licensing side numbers). It also probably put all overheard operating costs into the side they wanted to pad, away from the side they wanted to trim. Office rent, furniture, computers, IT support, maintenance man, cleaners, coffee station costs, stationary, seasonal office party, etc; that all falls under the licensing budget....

greylynx · #17 10-29-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elk Chaser

The savings won't be this year.

Those who worked for the firearms registry were federal employees and as federal employees the gov't has to follow the termination process. These people will be paid for at least another 6 months, then there is the education benefits and relocation funding for those who find federal employment elsewhere in Canada.

In the long run there will be savings but not this year.

Thank you for this post Elk Chaser.

I was wondering how the government would be handling the jobs of the ex registry people.

greylynx · #18 10-29-2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

The cost of running the registry was between 1.5 and 4 million a year?

Lies like that should come with jail time.

You cant run a Boston Pizza on 1.5 million per year, but the govt can run a nationwide registry on that??????

Absolute garbage.

You can run a Boston Pizza on 1.5 million per year but you have to quit qiving all your freinds and ex workers free meals and reduced meals.

I think you and I know who we are talking about. He does ok.

Okotokian · #19 10-29-2012, 09:32 AM

If the original figures quoted by the Conservatives and registry opponents were actually for registration AND licensing of all firearms and firearms owners, then of course saying the long gun registry cost 2 billion was patently false. It's clear that administering the licensing system with it's reviews, checking references, involving provincial chief firearms officers, etc. costs MUCH more than registering a long gun. However, to anyone following the issue, the bulk of the cost was in the past. It didn't cost much to run it on an ongong basis. Cost wasn't why it was wound down.

I always did and still support getting rid of the long gun registry, but I don't need falsification to do it. Ditto on any UN control over sporting arms. Definitely against it, but stick with the facts, not the hysteria.

Elko · #20 10-29-2012, 09:39 AM

Most of the federal employees from the registry side are just switching to the new pay and compensation section that they is now in the same town as the registry office was. They do the entire country out one office instead of the half dozen offices they had.

I do not believe miramichi lost any federal jobs out of the town at all. I alsowould not be surprised if the govt promised this to the town when they cancelled the registry part.

TomCanuck · #21 10-29-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okotokian

If
I always did and still support getting rid of the long gun registry, but I don't need falsification to do it. Ditto on any UN control over sporting arms. Definitely against it, but stick with the facts, not the hysteria.

Let's be clear here, any polarized debate such as gun control has plenty of stretching the truth on both sides.

Personally, I think those for the LGR stretched it far farther, than those opposed to it. They also relied heavily on hysteria with the likes of the Dippers talking about, "BAD SCARY GUNS".

The fact is that gun owners opposed registration because it lead to baseless confiscations on numerous occasions.

Okotokian · #22 10-29-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

Let's be clear here, any polarized debate such as gun control has plenty of stretching the truth on both sides.

Agreed. I've retained JUST enough innocence (naivete?) to believe that if you are truly in the right you don't need to lie. God, I'd never win an election. LOL

444 marlin · #23 10-29-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

In my view, Left-wing media activism, is by far the biggest threat to gun ownership in this nation. The power of the so called fifth estate in Western nations is becoming too great. It's at the point where political leaders consult them with regards to policy decisions.

Tax funded organizations should be made to follow an apolitical (neutral) line.

Instead we have severely biased garbage such as this article thrown at us.

Russia has had the system you are advocating for years,the news was called pravda,and every article printed or on radio was run through a state owned agency.

TomCanuck · #24 10-29-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 444 marlin

Russia has had the system you are advocating for years,the news was called pravda,and every article printed or on radio was run through a state owned agency.

I am all for a free press, what I'm against is a state subsidized press that has its own political agenda. Ie CBC.

Let the left fund their own propaganda wing.

All one need do is compare the CBC to the BBC to see how things could be way better.

Okotokian · #25 10-29-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCanuck

I am all for a free press, what I'm against is a state subsidized press that has its own political agenda. Ie CBC.

Let the left fund their own propaganda wing.

I like some of CBC television and a lot of CBC radio, but I agree. Those opposed to it's views shouldn't have to pay for it. I'd support privatization.

Canadian content should be supported and encouraged, but that can be done other ways.