They're all missing critical parts.

The CONs are vile.  No brains, no heart.

Near the end of question period Thursday in the House of Commons, a Conservative backbencher stood up to talk about the final passage of Bill C-19, the bill that would end the long-gun registry, and channelled civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Martin Luther King Jr.

John Williamson, in a ridiculous display of really bad, over-the-top showmanship cried out  “Free at last, free at last, law-abiding Canadians are finally free at last” in praise of the death of the long gun registry.  He stole the gist of the line from Martin Luther King Jr's famous I have a dream speech.  Williamson delivered this obscenity one day after the anniversary of King's murder - by a fucking sniper.

There is seriously something very dysfunctional with people like that who cannot see how their words and actions violate the very principles behind the words they steal.

And the story of CON stupidity and vileness continues - 

The federal government is backing down from proposed strict new ammunition regulations after receiving complaints from gun owners...The draft regulations, made public in March, included proposals that had ammunition being locked up and added severe new restrictions on the quantity of ammunition someone could own and store.

Terrific.  Now those law-abidin', hard wurkin' canadiuns can leave as much ammo as they want kicking around the house where little Johnny and little Mary (raised in a home where guns are promoted) have free access.  And criminals looking for a weapon can now not only break into just about any home in CONstituencies and avail themselves of an unregistered weapon, they can get their ammo there as well, load on the spot, and shoot the law abidin', hard workin' canadiun if he or a family member comes home suddenly.   Then the thief, well armed, can go on and raid more homes and stockpile more unregistered weapons.  But that's ok, because some yahoo with immediate access to ammo can blow his fucking head off and become a hero.

Gotta give in to those complaints by gun owners.  After all, little Johnny and little Mary can't vote.  And they aren't fetuses.

The ever oblivious Vic seems to have neglected to read yet another piece of proposed legislation he is responsible for - and of course, blames bureaucrats:

 

"Those regulations were brought to my attention a day or two ago," said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews on Thursday. "That was a discussion I think was mainly inside the bureaucracy, and I just reiterate that is not regulations that will proceed as proposed."

I know Vic is quite busy trying to track down dangerous terrorists who publish public information, but he really should read the shit he's trying to pass.  It's looking like the CONs make Bills and Acts up as they go along based on pressure from their rabid base and big money stakeholders.

Which is, of course, exactly what they do.

Fetuses as human beings, the long gun registry, and Dear Leader

In April, MP Woodworth will ask  “Parliament to create a committee of politicians whose task it will be to review a law that stops short of defining unborn children as "human beings."  A committee of MPs has agreed to give Woodworth at least one hour of debate sometime in April. He will receive a second hour of debate sometime either in late spring or early fall.”

Why would harper allow this? A few reasons:

1.  Two of the biggest fund raisers for the CONs have been killing off the big, bad long gun registry and the equally vile and dangerous CBC.  With the registry gone and massive cuts in the works for CBC, the CON base has to be re-injected with CON-rabies or some virus that similarly keeps them mindlessly frothing at the mouth.  It also needs to make people want to donate money.  Promises of removing women’s right to control their own reproductive choices and their own bodies will do both.

 

2.  Stop the erosion of their base: Bill C-30 angered even some hard core CONs.  Many are very involved in social media and understand how that spy Bill would endanger their online freedom.  OAS reforms suggested by the CONs hits one of the right’s core group of supporters – older Canadians.  Show them another shiny object, the kind they easily get worked up over, and send signals that the CONs really do intend to regulate women’s wombs.

3.  Any big topic (and abortion debate always draws big crowds) is welcomed by harper right now because it takes away from discourse surrounding the very serious allegations of criminal activities committed by his party during the last (and possibly earlier) elections.

Before anyone thinks I’m being extreme in what I write below, I am not getting into the “what ifs” such as contraceptives except as they could be affected directly by such a re-definition of a human being.

If a fetus is defined as a human being, then it is entitled to the same rights.  That means if a fetus dies, there will have to be an investigation to determine cause of death.  

Let’s look at what defining a fetus as a human being means:

1.   Anyone deliberately causing the termination of the fetus would be guilty of murder including those who aided or enabled the termination.  Anyone trying to cover it up after the fact could also be charged.  

Many anti-choicers think this is a good idea, but read on – 

2.  Anyone causing the termination of a pregnancy could be charged with a range of crimes from neglect leading to death or manslaughter.  

Now listen up, you anti-choicers.  Even you men:

If a pregnant woman miscarries, the termination would have to be treated as the death of a human being and as such would have to be investigated.  A cause of death would have to be determined.  Many people are saying this will set women up for charges of manslaughter if they didn’t maintain perfect health and care throughout the pregnancy.  Yes, we already see that happening in the States.  Did the woman drink alcohol or take in any possibly harmful substances?  Did she eat a healthy diet, get enough rest, enough exercise? Did she take measures to reduce stress, to control her weight in a healthy way?  Did she do everything she possibly could to avoid harm to the fetus?  Ignorance is no excuse because it is her responsibility to protect the fetus just as it is her responsibility to protect a child.

But not every unintentional death is the result of the woman's behaviour.  Did hubby provide healthy food throughout the pregnancy?  Did he intercede if he suspected or knew the woman was doing something that could risk the pregnancy?  Did he do everything he could to reduce stress for her?  Did he make sure she got enough sleep?  Did he take on a significant amount of household chores to ease her physical burden?  Did he take over tasks that involved the use of chemical cleaners?  Did he babysit the other kids and teach them not to jump on mommy’s belly?  Was he extra careful during sex?

And you bosses – did you accommodate her properly during the pregnancy?  Did you make sure she wasn’t handling chemicals, changing toner on machines, exposed to machines or equipment that could harm the pregnancy?  Did you make sure not to let her give into typical job pressures of long hours?

And you doctors – better make sure your insurance covers the many, many things you could be sued for in wrongful death.

Now the really tricky stuff that still would absolutely have to be covered if a fetus is a human being:

1.  How can the legal system which must now protect all  fetuses know if a woman is pregnant?  Are we to trust women to report every pregnancy?  Not likely, since we already know that many believe abortion is not murder and history has shown us some get so desperate that they will obtain one illegally.  But the law has to protect all fetuses just as it has to protect all human beings, so the only sure answer is to have women go to registered clinics for a pregnancy test every month for as long as they have even one viable egg left in their government regulated ovaries.

If this isn’t done, a woman could sneak off and have an abortion.

Even REAL women, virtuous ones who would never ever deliberately end a pregnancy could accidentally kill a fetus if they don’t know they are pregnant and where’s the justice for Little Fetus?  What if the woman doesn’t know she is pregnant and decides to go on birth control, or ties one on, or goes bungie-jumping?  What if her hubby pours her an extra glass of champagne on their anniversary?

2.  Folks can’t use the argument that they didn’t know the woman was pregnant because if a fetus is a human being, it is entitled to the same rights as a human being, and people should know that it’s possible that there could be a little fetus growing away.  The only way to be sure there’s no little potential homicide victim hiding in a womb is when the woman starts her period and for a short time after that, so except for that week or so, every woman with even a single viable egg left would have to act – and be treated as – a pregnant woman just in case.  The only time she can be somewhat neglected and neglectful is when she’s on the rag – which is just fine because who wants anything to do with a menstruating  woman anyway?  But she can’t drop all of her responsibilities to the potential fetuses and their potential rights since drugs (and that includes the ones to curb the menstrual pains) stay in her system for some time, or can cause damage.  

Some people will say this is all ridiculous and that the first point – deliberately terminating a pregnancy is the only one that could come about (because it’s really the only one supporters of such a fetus rights  Bill really want), but that would not reflect what the Bill legally defines: Fetus= Human Being.  Everything a person can now be held responsible for a fetus when it comes to caring for, or harming (intentionally or otherwise), or killing, or neglecting just as they now are for a human being.  

3.  Look at all the points above and realize that this applies not only to the death of a fetus, but to its development as well.  If a child is born with a disability or illness, the mother and anyone who had any impact on the fetus would be legally responsible for any permanent or long term ill effects the fetus suffered.

Stephen Woodworth’s bull-shit argument:

The review, he argues, is needed because the law is based on a 400-year-old definition of human being.  "If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?" he argued.

What a load of crap.  What a dishonest argument.  Four hundred years ago, some races weren’t considered human beings in some lands.  Neither were women.  Their rights were moved forward at great cost to many.  To imply that anyone now considered a human being could be reclassified as something less because in Canada, our government hasn’t declared a fetus as a human being is...insane.  But I do consider the source.  Especially since it comes from the same group of people who largely want to bring back the death penalty.  And who think it’s ok to fire warning shots over people’s heads.  And who believe everyone should have the right to carry concealed, unregistered firearms.

I don,t for a moment believe Woodworth’s Bill is mean in anyway to protect groups of people from being declared non-human.

Just a refresher because we always need to examine harper’s stance on anything that has to do with anything anywhere at all times:

Harper’s denials:

"A Conservative government will not be bringing forward, will not be supporting, and will not be debating the abortion laws in this country. I've been clear on that and, frankly, I think that's put the matter to rest." - Harper (January 11, 2006)

"Very clearly I am against reopening that debate," he said. "That is my position, now and in the past five years as well, and as long as I am prime minister, we will not reopen the debate on abortion. We will leave the law as it stands."  - Harper  (April 21, 2011)

 “The Prime Minister has been very clear, our government will not reopen this debate.” -  Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Feb. 28, 2012)

Harper runs the show.  We know that.  He thinks he can reassure the majority of Canadians – the more sane ones… 

h/t BCL

…while appealing to the rabid nut jobs.

He’s a liar who has no respect at all for Canadians.  We aren’t stupid enough to be swayed by semantics.   He can’t claim that a motion to discuss the fetus as a human being does not re-open abortion debate since abortion is termination of a fetus and legal because a fetus is not a human being under our laws.

I don’t think he intends to get into a full blown debate right now since he still hasn’t the extent of control over Parliament, the public service, communications, the legal system, and media as he wants, but he’ll let this one float near the top, run targeted fund raising campaigns on it, and let the discussion become more frequent and mainstream as time goes on.  Eventually, if he holds onto power long enough, he will have to introduce it or risk fragmenting his party as it not only moves further right, but forces Canada along with it.  The further right our laws go, the further right they will be pushed.  It is extremely naive and dangerous to believe harper will never re-open the abortion debate simply because most Canadians would rebel.  Long form census, Bill C-30, omnibus crime bill, government sanctioned torture, illegal election activities...

Stand on guard for Canada.

"...a very dangerous precedent"

Yes, making things disappear because we don't want people finding shit out is pretty dangerous.  We should know that.

 

Eventually, people make a party out of embracing ignorance and destroying information.  Children begin to view any kind of information - except that approved by The Party - as corrupting.  Damn academics, statisticians, scientists!  Pretentious types, elitists, the whole lot, bunch of latte drinking commies...

Ignorant people are easier to control.  Lack of resources to research policy lets The Party make up their own pseudo-facts and figures.

The federal bill introduced last month would halt registration of long guns and permanently delete more than seven million files on gun ownership. It would override provisions of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and the Privacy Act to allow for destruction of the records.

The Association of Canadian Archivists recently wrote to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, arguing that destroying records for "political expediency" and ignoring existing legislation "sets a very dangerous precedent for future legislation and record-keeping practices."

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." 
                                                                                                                                                - Orwell

Another stupid argument people use to justify scrapping the long gun registry

The Conservative government says there is no evidence the registry has saved a single life.

Well, even with a reality-challenged bunch like the CONs, this should be seen as a ridiculous statement.  If cops get a call concerning domestic abuse, use the registry to see what firearms might be in the house, take precautions accordingly, and resolve the situation without anyone blowing anyone else’s brains out, the police report isn’t likely to state that the gun registry saved lives.  But it may well have.

If a stolen firearm used in a crime is traced to its original owner through the registry, the cops could learn that other firearms may also be in the suspect’s possession so when the cops go to arrest the criminal, they know to prepare themselves for more than one loaded rifle.  The cops seize the rifles, taking them away from a criminal who might have gun-happy buddies, and no one gets their head blown off by those long guns.  Again, the police report doesn’t say the registry saved lives, but it well may have.

The registry allows cops to have a better idea what they are facing when they get a call, and it allows them to remove long guns from people who should not have them.  Hard concept to follow, I know, but if you know there’s a loaded rifle in the hands of a disturbed person, you have a better chance of diffusing the situation without someone getting killed.  If you take long guns out of circulation when they end up in the hands of criminals, those rifles can’t be used to kill anyone.

Fuck!  That’s a hell of a lot easier to understand than the ozone layer.

Stupid, dishonest argument on long gun registry

I own three long guns.  I think of registering them in the same way I feel about registering my vehicle.  If someone steals my jeep, I have a better chance of getting it back if it is registered.  If my stolen jeep is used in a crime, the cops may have a better chance of finding the guy if they can link him to the initial theft.  If someone commits a crime against me while using their registered vehicle, it will help the cops nab the guy.  Serious offenders can lose their truck and/or license to drive it to prevent further harm coming to others.

I’m one of those salt-of-the-earth people Hoeppner talks about – farm owner, occasional hunter.  

I  don’t feel that I’m being treated as a criminal by having to register my vehicle.  I understand, as most intelligent people do, that while most vehicle owners in Canada drive responsibly and don’t commit crimes with their trucks or cars, a small percentage do, and registration laws are in place to protect all of us from that small percentage.  I also understand that while most people can get a grip on their emotions, some people do give in to road-rage and harm others with their vehicle.

I don’t kick up a fuss when I go through airport security even though I am searched and scanned for illegal or dangerous items because I understand, as do most intelligent people, that while most Canadians travelling by air aren’t terrorists or smugglers, a small percentage can be, and the laws are there to protect the rest of us.

When asked to present ID at a government building, I, like most intelligent people, understand that I am not being personally targeted as a terrorist or spy, but appreciate that such security is in place to stop that small percentage of people who may wish us harm.

So when the CONs bash the gun registry by saying it targets honest citizens and treats them like criminals, they are showing themselves to be a bunch of lying, opportunistic, patronizing CONmen/women.  

Ms. Hoeppner said the long-gun registry failed to work because it’s “not the weapon of choice for criminals in Canada.” 

Riiiight.

 No one is even trying to suggest that long gun owners are irresponsible folks bent on committing crimes any more than anyone is saying that truck owners are all a bunch of criminals waiting for the perfect opportunity to use their vehicle in the commission of some crime.  But as any intelligent person knows, a small percentage of long gun owners are criminals.  

The government cited a recent Statistics Canada report that said of 253 firearms used to commit murder between 2005 and 2009, nearly 70 per cent had never been registered.

OK, but that means over 30% were registered.  Bet that helped with investigations.

The same Statscan report said that of 179 homicides using firearms in 2009, 24 per cent were committed using long guns: rifles and shotguns.

And as any intelligent person knows, a small percentage of gun owners – as with non-gun owners – can occasionally fail to control their rage.  I haven’t heard any of the opposition say no one should own long guns because of this.  They are saying that because a small percentage of people can use the long gun for the wrong reasons – in the same way a small percentage of air travelers will put others at risk, or drivers will act criminally or irresponsibly – it helps to have such weapons registered for everyone’s safety and to help catch those who commit crimes while using them.  A register can also let cops know if someone who is developing a pattern of violence has a long gun, and they could remove it.  Leaving such a weapon in the hands of someone who has been making serious threats is ludicrous.

So really.  Long gun owners (and I can say this since I’m an owner) who resist the registry should quit their whining.  No one is targeting them, no one is treating them like criminals, and if they are too damn stupid to understand that while most long gun owners are responsible and law abiding but a small percentage aren’t, then maybe they shouldn’t have access to weapons of any kind themselves.

There Cheryl. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

On March 10, Cheryl Gallant, possibly the stupidest MP currently on the Hill was warning farmers and hunters of the terrible peril they faced if "the opposition, separatist, socialist coalition force an unwanted election."   You see,  the amnesty for unregistered long guns was to expire May 17th.

Yes...take a moment...I know...just pretend you spent your entire life in a cave and your only source of info was tele-tubbies.  Then imagine you had a lobotomy.

OK.

But someone who is at least slightly swifter than dear Cheryl found a solution to that terrible plight of farmers and hunters:

On the eve on an election campaign the Conservative government has quietly extended an amnesty for long-gun owners who have not complied with the gun registry.

So...Harper & Co.’s #1 priority is the economy...

Sure.  That’s what they are saying, right?

Except...

Today, at the time I checked it, National News Watch carried 2 articles related to the government and the economy.  It also carried...17 articles on the gun registry.  Some of those were opinion pieces, but many were prompted directly by the CONs actions and statements on the registry:

Harper and three of his cabinet members will interrupt UN visit

Harper vows gun registry will be scrapped some day

Tories turn Google against rural MPs in gun-registry feud

MacKay blasts long-gun registry

 Tories won't give up on gun registry

Baird slams 'Toronto elites' over gun registry

Seriously.  If you were in charge of running the country, would the gun registry be anywhere near the top of your to-do list?  Would it even make the top ten?  The top twenty?

How about this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this or this, or this?

Yeah, scrapping that registry is real important shit.  Should save lives.  Make our lifestyle so much better.  Raise our standard of living.  Build a safer world.  Go miles forward in fighting poverty.  Reduce racism.  Provide jobs.  Improve health care.  Assure better education to all.

...well, maybe not.

But it will make a small percentage of gun owners happy and will put some of their money in the CONs coffers.

Certainly worth the effort and expense.  Certainly more important than everything else.                   

The Flawed and Disordered Party of Harper

“Sorry Gary, but that's just crazy talk about our police.”

Below are parts of an email exchange between CON MP Garry Breitkreuz and NDP MP Charlie Angus concerning scrapping the long gun registry.  I have to disagree with the journalist’s conclusion that ” Angus may be on the verge of changing his mind and voting to kill the registry.”  I see quite the opposite in Angus’ response, but you decide:

From: Breitkreuz, Garry - M.P.
To: Angus, Charlie - Personal
…I can appreciate that the NDP M.P.s who supported Bill C-391 are now under tremendous pressure to flip-flop by supporting the motion to kill the bill on September 22. This is just a short note to remind you that nothing has changed since you supported Bill C-391 on November 4, 2009.

…In light of the Liberal leader's decision to whip his caucus into killing Bill C-301 on September 22, your voice is even more important…you will be representing them with pride when you vote against the motion on September 22.

From:Angus, Charlie - Personal
To: Breitkreuz, Garry - M.P.
...  I was more than a little surprised to hear from you about the registry, again. Its interesting that this is the only rural issue you ever seem to want to talk to us about. You and your government have hardly been collegial with rural New Democrats on addressing the concerns of our citizens.

… I supported getting Bill C-391 to committee because I felt rural Canadians had legitimate concerns about the costs of the registry, its effectiveness and whether or not it is used effectively by police. I was really hoping we could all work together as Parliamentarians, listen to the problems with the registry, hear from various witnesses and finally get answers to these fundamental questions. Unfortunately, your government has fought against information getting out, actively suppressed departmental reports and publically attacked police officers who dare disagree with you.

But I do appreciate your letter. Thanks to your opinion piece, I learned that the Harper government believes the real reason police are "strident" on this issue is because they dont want Canadians to own guns. And you seem to claim the real reason police want to keep the registry is not for public safety, but so they someday will be able to burst into family homes and seize grampa's 20 gauge. Sorry Gary, but that's just crazy talk about our police.

…So Gary, let's be frank: we're just not on the same page here at all. Rural New Democrats have brought forward legitimate concerns of rural residents and are looking to have those issues addressed. The Harper Conservatives, on the other hand, would rather try and just stir up rural Canadians with all manner of wild and crazy conspiracy theories about our local police forces. And just for the sake of a quick fundraising buck and some negative partisan advertising.

Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

We should hear from elected MPs.  Keep it up, guys.

Praise to Angus for his integrity and his kick-ass response.