XPost: can.politics, bc.politics, ont.politics   
   XPost: ab.politics, nb.general   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   Canada's version of the g-damn NRA of the U.S. is going to be under   
   scrutiny, big time, after the Moncton shootings.  Here they are . . .   
   saying that government should be ferreting out "people with mental   
   issues" instead of examining people with guns.   
      
   I'd be really interested in how this would be done, considering they   
   have pushed their Harper Con government into disallowing even the   
   registration of many firearms.   
   Should Canadians all line up at their local mental health clinics to   
   take tests that would qualify or disqualify them from gun ownership?  Or   
   should gun owners, as well as prospective  gun owners, be made to   
   undertake tests which prove they do not have mental issues.   
      
   Hey!  I have an idea . . .  force all gun owners and prospective gun   
   owners to REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS, so that police can check to see if   
   those persons do not have a history of violence or mental issues - or   
   maybe have a facebook page in which they've proclaimed their hatred for   
   police, authority, and their right to use their weapons to prevent   
   anyone attempting to take them away from said person.   
      
   Canada . . .  we've got some 'adjusting' to do under the next government:   
   REGISTRATION of all firearms.  BACKGROUND CHECKS on all firearms owners   
   - and sellers.  NO ADMITTANCE TO NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION LOBBYISTS   
   signs posted at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and all MP offices   
   around the country.   
   ____________________________________________________   
      
      
   CBC News Posted: Jun 07, 2014   
      
      
   Moncton shootings: National Firearms Association response 'premature'   
      
      
   The killing of three RCMP officers in Moncton, N.B., and the capture of   
   the rifle-toting suspect has stirred emotions across the country and   
   led, perhaps inevitably, to a renewed discussion about firearms   
   regulation in Canada.   
      
   But anti-gun supporters, as well as a gun advocacy group, are taking   
   issue with the timing and message of a statement by the National   
   Firearms Association saying the shootings proved the futility of gun   
   control.   
      
   "I thought it was pretty premature," said Tony Bernardo, executive   
   director of the Canadian Sport Shooting Association, adding that   
   discussions about the causes of the Moncton shootings should "not [be]   
   about gun control."   
      
   He said the focus has to be "on identifying people who have mental   
   health issues."   
      
   On Thursday afternoon, while the manhunt for suspect Justin Bourque was   
   still in progress, the NFA released a statement saying that while it   
   "deplores the terrible actions by a clearly deranged individual," the   
   killings demonstrated that "Canada's excessive firearms control system   
   has failed again."   
      
   A number of people on social media reacted negatively. One Twitter user   
   wrote, "NFA decide to make political statement on gun laws in Canada   
   before the blood on the streets of Moncton has even dried, stay classy!"   
      
   Canadian crime novelist Michael McCann tweeted, "Once the Moncton   
   situation is resolved, the spotlight must go on the NFA & their   
   ill-timed, insensitive statement."   
      
   Sheldon Clare, president of the NFA, anticipated that the group might be   
   "pilloried" for the statement. But he said that as soon as the shooting   
   happened on Wednesday night, his organization started to see comments on   
   social media about the need for greater gun control — what he called   
   "a lot of grave-dancing happening from the typical gun-grabbing groups."   
      
   Clare also said that a number of politicians mused aloud about the need   
   to revisit the issue of gun control.   
      
   On Thursday afternoon, for example, NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice told the   
   CBC, "I think that the gun registry was a good idea and maybe we have to   
   go back to the table and think what kind of rules we should have to   
   protect people."   
      
   Clare called the comments "opportunistic and offensive."   
      
   When asked whether the NFA's statement could be construed as equally   
   opportunistic, Clare said, "I don't see this as taking an opportunistic   
   stand."   
      
   He said the NFA did not take the decision to make a statement lightly.   
      
   "We thought, well, we can be criticized for being quiet about this, or   
   we can be criticized for speaking out and taking a leadership role and   
   being proactive – and we decided to be proactive and speak up," he said.   
      
   "There are millions of Canadian gun owners who didn't do anything bad   
   yesterday, and they shouldn't have to pay the price for one madman."   
      
      
   'It's too early to have this discussion'   
      
   While the NFA felt the need to speak out, some gun control advocates   
   felt that the timing was indeed premature. When CBC contacted the   
   Coalition for Gun Control, the organization responded with an email   
   saying, "The Coalition feels it's too early to have this discussion. We   
   will not participate at this point."   
      
   Blake Brown, author of the book Arming and Disarming: A History of Gun   
   Control in Canada, said he was "surprised" by the quickness of the NFA's   
   reaction.   
      
   "It did strike me as different from the recent approach taken by the NRA   
   in the United States, which after Sandy Hook went quiet for a while   
   until it could figure out what's going on, what its stance should be,"   
   Brown says.   
      
   "But here, the NFA very quickly got out of the gate with a very radical   
   message."   
      
   Brown believes the NFA has been amplifying its language in recent years   
   to stay relevant since the gutting of the federal long gun registry,   
   which was implemented by the Liberal government in 1995 and effectively   
   dismantled by the current government in 2012.   
      
   Since the abolishing of the long gun registry, Brown said "the NFA needs   
   a reason to exist, and the reason now is to push for more rollbacks in   
   federal gun regulations."   
      
   The NFA's Clare said his group feels rollbacks are indeed needed,   
   because the existing regulations punish law-abiding gun owners by   
   imposing a large number of restrictions on the purchase and use of firearms.   
      
   Bernardo cited the numerous penalties "for seemingly innocuous things."   
   For example, stopping "for a donut and a coffee on the way to the   
   [shooting] range" could be a violation of the authorization to transport   
   a firearm, and carries a mandatory minimum jail term of three years, he   
   said.   
      
      
   Talk of regulation inevitable   
      
   Despite his misgivings about the timing of the NFA statement, Bernardo   
   said that shooting rampages, which happen more frequently in the U.S.,   
   always result in finger-pointing at the gun lobby.   
      
   "When this kind of thing happens and the immediate talk is, 'Let's put   
   more regulations on the law-abiding,' you can understand why the NFA   
   might be feeling a little twitchy here," said Bernardo.   
      
   Jennifer Carlson, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)