Is this part of the Liberal big tent inclusiveness. Name calling.
Stay classy.

I'm actually far more afraid of getting shot is saskatchewan, the murder province. Or suburban BC, best place to die by gunfire. That said, if it isn't hampering our current government's efforts to curb gun-crime in Toronto, then why did you say it was?

Go back, read the exchange.

i before e except after c

(i will regret sending this, sooner rather than later, as I am a really bad speller….)

Nope, no principles. None at all. Jack Layton would pimp his granny for a few extra votes in a marginal seat. Perhaps that's what you mean by "too many principles" – he would only do so in a marginal seat.

Yes, we see how 'polite' a society the American one is.

And oddly, how often they get involved in wars.

I don't recall cops 'running amok' in Canada…do you have a guilty conscience?

Con crackpots in govt are definitely frightening.

Why Nicaragua? Switzerland is more like Canada than Nicaragua is and most/all Swiss men are armed so they can form militias and Swiss have better crime rate then we do, never mind Americans. And if you do a bit of research, you will find in Canada, America and UK, there were less gun crimes prior to first gun control legislation in 1920/30s than compared to after.

So I don't find you scare mongering about Nicaragua or Somalia or whatever anarchical country you care to list to be all that persuasive because Anglo countries, at least, have managed just fine without gun laws and other Western countries continue to have low crime rates even tho citizenry armed to teeth.

Switzerland has lots of guns, many government issued, with the government keeping track of the serial number and the onus on use being placed on the individual. They also have much more extensive training for use and far tighter gun controls & registrations than Canada. So perhaps it is not the guns & farmers that is our issue, perhaps it is the paranoia of Breitkreuz et al who equate rational monitoring over a weapon with a plot to take away rifles from responsible owners.

So again I agree with bergkamp, lets be more Swiss, better chocolate, nice cheese and stronger gun controls.

Oh and by the way, the Swiss don't have a mandatory census THEY HAVE 2!

"All persons residing in Switzerland at the time of census taking are required to fill out a personal questionnaire. It contains 21 questions regarding personal data:

Date of birth, gender, marital status, citizenship, place of residence five years ago, place of residence on date of birth, position in household, number of children, religion, languages, education, current employment situation, current job title, commute time to place of work or study, means of transport used, commute time (surname, first name and address for verification and further inquiry).

All households are required to fill out the household questionnaire. It contains questions regarding the household (address, telephone number, number of toilets) and occupants"

No, it was a federal matter….straight from Harper.

There was no secret law…..this has been headlined many times. Catch up.

You better let McGuinty know because he, and our constitution, say provs are responsible for policing and Feds have no way to usurp that authority. Even McGuinty says Liberal government suspending civil rights is " …. in keeping with the values and standards of Ontarians …. " so I don't find your assertion about Feds all that persuasive.

I'm not even trying to pin any blame on the mishaps on Harper here. Just stating a fact.

And that fact is that the security provided for the G20 was provided by different levels of police/security – municipal (Toronto Police), provincial (OPP) and federal (military, RCMP) – but the procurement, coordination, direction and authority over all of them was federal. Specifically the federal Integrated Security Unit.

I'm not trying to spin anything here, bergkamp. I'm sorry if facts and reality don't line up the way you want.

The provincial government can pass all sorts of laws. The law you are talking about – that police have the ability to search anyone coming onto a public works – is as old as government. The "secret" law, merely confirmed that the security perimeter created by the security fence was a public works. It wasn't even needed but it did make it clear.

Which in no way even comes close to refuting what I am saying. The Integrated Security Unit was in charge of all operations. They bought the equipment, they built the fence, they said where police were to go and how they were to be armed, they set up the detention centre.

The link provides all the proof. No obfuscation like you are trying. The website I link to, and the legislative backing for it, all existed prior to the arrests too bergkamp. And if they were trying to pass the buck, why would they continue to say they were in charge?????

Show me how the federal government was responsible for the G20 arrests. Then show me how Stephen Harper those arrests were direct from Harper as Emily says.

So Vic Toews ordered all those arrests..no front lime policeman was involved in the decision. Vic got those orders from Harper. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound?

I'm not even trying to pin any blame on the mishaps on Harper here, Mark. Just stating a fact.

And that fact is that the security provided for the G20 was provided by different levels of police/security but the overall responsibility for everything – procurement, coordination, direction and authority – was federal. Specifically the federal Integrated Security Unit.

Police chiefs, and police unions support the registry.

You have no poll whatever. There are over 60,000 cops in Canada.

Yes exactly that one. What do you have to support the view front line police like the registry?

Well it wasn't a poll and it wasn't just police answering it. So you got nada.

As for support for the registry, we have:

1. Pretty much every police chief in the country – all of the cops – strongly support the registry.

2. Pretty much every police union in the country – all of them cops whose job is to represent cops and have never shown the slightest care about what their political leaders care – strongly support the registry.

3. The many police reports that conduct surveys of cop views. Not polls, and fairly unscientific, but clearly a heck of a lot moreso than some guy posting a question on an online forum to the general public. Oh, and they show strong support for the registry.

4. Silence. With so much being said about what cops think and only like one or two coming out against it.

5. Logic: What cop wouldn't want more information, as much information as possible, about every single incident or investigation they conduct. Cops are data hungry and strongly support the gun registry data.

You're welcome.

1. So you admit it. Good.
2. Who knows better about their membership, you or them? Have you ever known a cop to let someone else speak so often so forcefully for them if they disagree?
3. The few who have spoken out belie your "muffled". See #2.
4. Whether it is useless or not – and clearly it is very useful and the recent report itemizes the many and various ways in which it is useful and adds to our safety and the safety of the police – is changing the channel on the question of whether they support it and would want additional information or not.
5. Cop unions are much closer to the cops than most unions. There are no "professional" union bosses like in industry. They are almost always the toughest front line cops out there. There are no outsiders. And they certainly no that they owe their power to the cops they represent and not to the Chiefs they sit across from at the negotiating table. The unions would be in big trouble if they spoke out against where their membership is.

That is about as good as any of the research to date.

Garry B makes sh*t up.