This is a pet peeve of mine. I have read a number of items from people who oppose abolishing the Long Gun Registry, and have never found any of them to be convincing. In fact, most of the time they rely on catch phrases, rhetoric, bias borne from swishing down contemporary urban thought process with pints of spittle and other misc. tidbits which they cannot support thoroughly with numbers.
This bill does not propose scrapping the entire gun registry. It does not propose changing the status of firearms that are currently illegal. Kalashnikov's will still be illegal. It does not propose ending the very time consuming and intrusive process involved in obtaining a license to own a firearm or any of the other laws associated with that.
What it addresses is, ending the record keeping arm of the bureaucracy which is related to Long guns. Such things as hunting rifles, military rifles (non automatic) and antique rifles.
At the heart of this, is a clash of cultures, era's and political pandering. What we have in essence, is a time warp of sorts. The cities have lot's of trouble's these days with drugs, drug dealers, assorted criminal elements and they also have noisy special interest groups. The issue of the Long guns has become a crutch for those who haven't the courage to admit where the real source of their troubles comes from. That being themselves, their daily habits and weaknesses and dull wits. Oh look, there's a new bandwagon to jump on! Hurry!
At the core of my gripes is another consideration, that being the lack of public input and regional representation involved when these laws and regulations were initially implemented. I don't remember any public discussions in my area. I don't remember this being an important election plank. I don't remember the government of the day giving consideration to a long established right, and the weight of past practice involved. What I remember is the arrogance of a majority federal government who as usual, acted based on what was politically expedient at the time.
I don't presume to have basis to tell Ontario, Quebec or B.C. what to do about the problems that have been created, largely in their high population areas. If they can't address the drug issues, without encompassing laws covering ownership of guns, then that is something for them to deal with. And that is who I think should deal with it. I think most of the responsibility for gun legislation should rest with provincial governments. Perhaps incorporating municipal government where warranted. Situations such as what is experienced in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would suggest that might be sensible. It would localize controls on an as needed basis, plus costs as well.
But this one size fits all routine, sticks in my craw. I live in the outbacks, I don't want the troubles of the cities, and I don't need no steenkin' Big Brother telling me whether I's growed up enough to own a gun. Sometimes I wondered if Big Brother is all growed up?