Sunday, September 19, 2010

The NRA Fighting the Good Fight in Canada

Bloomberg Businessweek published an interesting article about the NRA's involvement in Canadian politics.

The part I liked best is this, although I realize the results of polls like this are only appreciated by the side they support.

A Harris-Decima poll of 1,000 voters conducted Aug. 26 to Aug. 29 found 48 percent think it’s a bad idea to scrap the registry, compared with 38 percent who say they want it eliminated, the Canadian Press reported Sept. 7.

What's your prediction? Are they going to do away with the registry?

Please leave a comment.

18 comments:

  1. One nutjob says the NRA is meddling so it must be true. Because he has a bunch of evidence no doubt--oh wait, he doesn't. He just says they must be because his fellow citizens wouldn't be tired of spending billions on something that doesn't stop crime.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have no idea if the NRA is involved, or not. I don't think it would be a bad idea--if even Canada finds itself forced to admit that one of "gun control's" holy grails (universal registration) isn't worth the cost, that would be a nice win for liberty everywhere, including in the U.S.

    I especially love this part of the article:

    “That’s not appropriate; we’re a sovereign country,” McGuinty told reporters in Ottawa today. “If the NRA wants to fight its good fight over its views on guns, it should do so in the United States.”

    Oh really, Mr. McGuinty?

    Do you have any problem with the feculent Canadian bitch Wendy Cukier inserting herself into U.S. gun politics?

    One third of all guns in the world are in the U.S. And half the guns used to commit crimes in Canada come from south of the border. So yes, this country needs and wants an International Arms Treaty. “Here in Canada we live next to a country with as many guns as people and those guns are killing Canadians. This is the main argument for an international agreement,” asserted Coalition for Gun Control president Wendy Cukier during an April 22 conference in Toronto.

    Of course McGuinty had no objection to that, the hypocritical, self-righteous, sniveling fraud. Someone ought to refer to him as the "Nexus of Assholery"--oh, hey, whaddya know?

    I don't follow Canadian politics closely enough to have much of an idea of how likely it is for the Canadian people to get out from under the atrocity of the long gun registry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And yes, I know "Nexus of Assholery" is the name of the blog, rather than a term being applied to Mr. McGuinty--it just amused me that McGuinty managed to get himself singled out there (and on this very issue, no less).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, I recall the 38% figure to be correct... for Quebec. All other provinces seem to have positive support for scrapping the billion dollar sinkhole.
    So it's only a majority of French-Canadians, rather than Canada as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zorro, Your vocabulary and turn of phrase are always impressive.

    But, do you remember what the Emperor Joseph said to Mozart in the great movie Amadeus?

    "You are passionate Mozart, but you do not persuade."

    I may have said that to you before becasue I often think of it when I read your verbal excesses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The very same could be said of you, MikeB.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    "You are passionate Mozart, but you do not persuade."

    I may have said that to you before becasue I often think of it when I read your verbal excesses.


    I "do not persuade"? Please--as if anything I could say, no matter how gently I treated everyone's delicate feelings, would convince you that guns aren't icky (along with men, white people, Americans, Christians, southern states, etc.).

    I'm not trying to persuade you--the best I'm hoping for is that you realize that there is a hard core of American gun owners who will not give another inch.

    As for my "verbal excesses," if that's a reference to my verbosity, my apologies--haven't really gotten the hang of succinctness (much less brevity).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "You are passionate Mozart, but you do not persuade."

    He said this to Mozart, who went down as one of the most influential composers of all time…

    ReplyDelete
  9. TS:

    He said this to Mozart, who went down as one of the most influential composers of all time…

    Well, I will certainly never dare claim that comparison ;-).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zorro's raison d'etre:

    "I'm not trying to persuade you--the best I'm hoping for is that you realize that there is a hard core of American gun owners who will not give another inch."

    But I seem to remember the other day when you criticized me for that very thing, for not backing down when confronted with the fact that violent crime is down.

    In the phrase "verbal excesses" I was speaking figuratively not literlally. Maybe "verbal exaggerations" or "excessive language" would have been better. I don't find you long-winded, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    But I seem to remember the other day when you criticized me for that very thing, for not backing down when confronted with the fact that violent crime is down.

    Hmm . . . maybe--I don't remember that, but I may have said something along those lines.

    I make a pretty huge distinction between an absolute refusal to ever back down in defense of fundamental rights, and refusal to stop trying to trample them.

    As the incomparable Steve Earle says:

    So come back, Emma Goldman
    Rise up, old Joe Hill
    The barricades are going up
    They cannot break our will
    Come back to us, Malcolm X
    And Martin Luther King
    We're marching into Selma
    As the bells of freedom ring


    I'm curious--what kinds of songs are inspirational for those into suppression of fundamental human rights?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Excessive language, verbal excesses, linguistic exaggerations are very well exemplified by your continual use of "fundamental rights" and "basic human rights" when referring to gun ownership.

    I realize it's not just you, your hero/father-figure Wayne LaPierre preaches that nonsense from the pulpit. Then hundreds or perhaps thousands of gun bloggers take up the chant. Pretty soon it sounds good.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I call self-defense a fundamental human right. I am not aware of any technique or technology that comes anywhere close to the effectiveness of a firearm for self-defense. Therefore I find myself with no escape from the conclusion that firearm ownership is a fundamental human right.

    Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    I realize it's not just you, your hero/father-figure Wayne LaPierre preaches that nonsense from the pulpit.

    Up yours, JB(O?)C, I despise LaPierre and his tepid, mainstream, Neville Chamberlainesque approach to gun rights advocacy.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse, or could you somehow have misread me that badly?

    ReplyDelete
  15. By the way, I think I figured out what you were talking about here:

    But I seem to remember the other day when you criticized me for that very thing, for not backing down when confronted with the fact that violent crime is down.

    I imagine it was my enthusiastic agreement with an observation made by TS:

    So in other words, you’ll never admit you’re wrong. No matter how good things are- “it’d be better with more gun control”. No matter how bad things are- “It’d be worse without gun control”

    What we're saying is that no matter which way the stats go, you will claim them as supporting your position.

    I, on the other hand, realize that certain statistical outcomes (a strong, demonstrable causal relationship between gun ownership rate and violence) would seem to weaken my position, but only for those who miss the point.

    Your "guns do more harm than good" mantra is one that I not only reject as false, but also dismiss as irrelevant. My goal isn't "the least violence possible"--it's "the most freedom possible." If that comes at the cost of more violence, well, I'll let Messrs. Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young explain.

    The cost is high, and anyone worth an iota of respect will be willing to pay it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "What we're saying is that no matter which way the stats go, you will claim them as supporting your position."

    I know it seems that way so far, but I swear, if the trend continues or increases, the time will come when I admit I was wrong.

    We're a long way from that now, three to five years, I estimate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "We're a long way from that now, three to five years, I estimate."

    I think your estimate of when you might change your mind is low by a factor of at least five.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fifteen to twenty-five more years of arguing with you guys. Now that is optimistic.

    ReplyDelete