Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /home/christo1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/paper-template/papertemplate.php(15) : eval()'d code(3) : eval()'d code on line 336
Murray Crawford -- "Hey you ignorant Eastern Elite"...
Don't blame me for the rude comment... it's how Murray requested he be addressed at the end of the latest piece of drivel he's attempting to pass off as intelligent commentary.
Murray Crawford's ignorance is truly astronomical, I've got to say.
"We need the long-gun registry. In fact we should stop calling it the long gun registry and just call it the gun registry, as handguns are already registered. Why do we need to separate the two?"
Two points, and I'll address the latter first.
Murray, you moronic "Eastern Elite", you've got it completely backwards. There is no such thing as a "long gun registry". Never has been. Since 1934 (the year Canada first started registering handguns), there has been only one registry.
The government tried adding long guns to it back in the 1940's in an effort to know where guns were for the war effort, but finally gave up when, shock of shocks, nobody complied with that stupid law.
Since 1995, when our nation stupidly tried to restart the program that had failed miserably once already, there is still only ONE registry. It contains firearms of all makes and action types...
The whole "Let's get rid of the long gun registry" is a political lie in the first place. How do you get rid of something that doesn't actually exist?
Beats me, but the voting public seems to eat it up or get pissed off by the prospect, depending on your bias for or against firearms.
Murray then goes on to try and make the point that we need the registry because police use it when they're called to domestic disputes.
"I don't know about you, but if I were a police officer and I was heading into a situation not knowing to expect, it would be nice to know if a gun was present for my own safety."
Now, either Murray Crawford is a moron, or the police attending all these domestic disputes are morons... I personally suspect it's the former, not the latter.
Any police man or woman STUPID ENOUGH to believe a thing their query to the gun registry says while they're on their way to a domestic dispute is essentially begging to get killed.
Because if they are naive enough (dumb enough) to believe there are no firearms present just because the gun registry says so, they simply won't be alive very long.
While I could cite you dozens of cases, I'll use the example of Constable Valerie Gignac.
Let me first be very clear. I am in NO WAY saying, insinuating or otherwise trying to make the point that Gignac was stupid. I personally never met her, but I don't for a second believe she was, so just jump off your horse right now if that's where you want to go. It's a non-starter.
My point in using her case is this:
The piece of garbage that murdered Constable Valerie Gignac ALREADY HAD a court-ordered firearms prohibition against him. Not only did that NOT stop him from illegally obtaining the hunting rifle he used to murder Valerie, it also didn't prevent him from KEEPING the two firearms he'd had registered to himself PRIOR to the firearms prohibition!
So Murray Crawford, you blathering [alleged] Eastern Elitist moron, please explain this to me. If the registry is so valuable, how come it was unable to remove firearms from a known violent offender with a firearms prohibition order already in place against him?
And once you answer me that, please explain how your beloved gun registry prevented him from obtaining the firearm he then used to murder Constable Valerie Gignac?
And in case you can't read Murray... here's a video that talks about the entire case... you know... just to make it easy for you. It's only 56 seconds. Even you should be able to pay attention that long!