Your statement makes no sense. Legal guns are already legal. Legal medical marijuana use is already legal by Health Canada.

Please lay off the pot and make a coherent statement, k-thx-bai!

The liberals, the CAPC, CGI, Coalition for Gun Control and a TON of other companies/organizations have their hands in the cookie jar. This crap has been going on for years.

Now that the gov't has changed, the hand's are getting slapped at the cookie jar, and you bet your sweet ass the liberals don't like it at ALL.

Liberals like getting free money, and they are scrupulous scavengers. They feel no guilt in their theivery. They avoid a guilt feeling by justifying their slippery business with a feeling of entitlement. "Oh, another cookie is ok...I deserve it...I WORKED for it".

Thay haven't worked for anything.

All the registry is to them is a cash cow....AND, it gives them control. And that's what they're all about. They care not about crime statistics or bloody murders on the city streets. They care about cold-hard-quid.

If the liberals lose the registry, they lose a segment of control over the populace, and they also lose an avenue of cash.

So, don't be fooled by what's right and wrong - factually and statistically. They want it for only 2 reasons - Money and Power

Way to change the subject Mike T. and answer a question with a question. You get a cookie!

Registering a firearm has nothing to do with the safe storage of a firearm and there's no factual correlation with one registered/unregistered long gun and a negligent discharge causing death.

Call StatsCan, I did.

Unsafe use of a firearm kills kids, so do swimming pools and bicycles. What's your point?

All the cost benefit analysis done by independent means (usually the Auditor General and NOT the RCMP) have proved that the gun registry is NOT effective in stopping, solving or preventing any crimes.

Too bad the $3million figure is a complete fabrication that is being misreported in the news.

The CBC, CTV and Mcleans have all stated that :
"Conservatives argue the registry has been "$1-billion boondoggle," although a 2006 study by the auditor general found eliminating the long-gun portion of the registry would only save taxpayers about $3
million a year going forward."

This quote is factually incorrect, as referenced in the May 2006 update on the Firearms Registry by the Auditor General. The $3 million figure is not attributed anywhere in any document from the Auditor General's Office

Please see the report itself:
(http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oa...

The $3 million figure is attributed from a Coalition for Gun Control press release - dated April 1st, 2009 to RCMP Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin

"The RCMP estimate, that if the registration of rifles and shotguns were discontinued, it would save only $3 million per year. (RCMP Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin testimony to the Government Operations and Estimates Committee, November, 2006.)"
(http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/pr...

However upon review on the Parliament's Government Operations and Estimate Committee records (minutes and evidence), Mr Martin was not a scheduled speaker for any committee meeting in November 2006 - (Please review http://www2.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/Committe...

So either Mr Martin stated this $3 million figure off record, or the number was fabricated by the Coalition for Gun Control.

All ACUTAL AG and RCMP estimate for registration activities run in the $12 million range.

What if $2b was transfered (to CST) or spent on federal grants programs created to fight domestic violence. Maybe $2b is unrealistic, how about 1% of that = $20m. What would $20m do to fight domestic violence? How many lives would that save, tragedy averted? More than the money pit gun registry.

The Dawson College shooter had a PAL and a licensed firearm, that didn't stop him from killing.

I take it you've never imported, registered or transfered a firearm yourself have you?

I've known people who have been arrested, threatened with prison, seizure of their homes and their children taken away by social services because they did not register their hunting rifle or for misplaced paperwork.

Please educate yourself before making snide comments.

Once again referencing the Supreme Court case (Reference re Firearms Act, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31) there is no "constitutional right" to firearms, so therefore the Government has the ability to single out handguns, automatic rifles, hand grenades etc.

By your logic, pre-1995 the Government could been challenged for discriminating against handgun owners.

Sorry there is no constitutional case for discrimination of handgun owners, otherwise we would of challenged it a LONG time ago.

This monitoring can be done with licensing on it's own and it can be said that registration itself is very intrusive.

What's interesting to note is that gun owners after registration expose themselves to inspection, search and seizure without warrant simply by having guns. This extrajudical power exists within the Firearms Act.

Wrong, the gun registry in its entirety was challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada (Reference re Firearms Act, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31)

The Court noted that firearms have been subject to federal regulation for years and that the government of Alberta could not reasonably challenge many of the earlier laws.

So there is no basis for a challenge based on discrimination.