Today is the day the gloves will come off. This morning the agenda consists of statements and Q&A from two witnesses but this afternoon, clause by clause examination of the bill will happen. This is the last faint hope of the gun-grabbers to gut the bill.
During Q&A previously we have seen senators on one side support and help witnesses who pointed out the ill effects of the long firearm registry which has risked lives, harrassed law-abiding citizens, cost $billions and done nothing to improve safety for Canadians for 17 years. At the same times the gun-grabbers on the committee repeated the same old lies and refused to recognize reality when presented to them. They made it a “women’s issue” when many firearms owners are women. They made it a divisive issue between urban and rural when most of us have rural roots. They made is a divisive issue between police and the citizens by repeating the chants of managers of police forces and associations wanting to pump up policing budgets instead of increasing police presence. They repeatedly supported whimsey over rational arguments based on facts.
The last hope of the gun-grabbers is to throw out clauses providing for the elimination of the firearms registry for unrestricted firearms and the destruction of the useless data. There will be many clauses recommended for removal or change and many votes. The end is not in doubt but it is sad to see senators supposedly giving “sober second thought” acting like parrots.
At the beginning of the second round of Q&A, a senator quoted Statistics Canada reports that homicide by firearms decreased more rapidly before the registry came into being than after. Heidi Rathjen, the witness, could only repeat that homicides had decreased after the registry came to be. Lack of rational thought is the hallmark of the gun-grabbers.
Priscilla DeVilliers, another witness, went on about what the harm would be if the registry were kept… Undermining the whole argument that the registry is about safety. Governments should not have legislation that is minimally harmful but provably desirable. Where is the desirability of an expensive, intrusive, erroneous system?
The meeting ended with a vote to report the bill unmodified back to the full Senate. Hurray!