I’m a little bit surprised but very pleased with how firm the Prime Minister and cabinet are holding on to their intention to scrap the gun registry in Canada. If they can reverse the repression there it will help us to prevent it here:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day paid a visit to Dawson College yesterday to discuss Canada’s gun control laws with the mother of Anastasia De Sousa, the student killed in the Sept. 13 shooting, and wounded student Hayder Kadhim.

Members of the Dawson Gun Control Committee were also present.

Kadhim, 17, had originally asked to meet Prime Minister Stephen Harper to debate the Conservative government’s intention to abolish the long-gun registry, but Harper sent Day in his place.

Calling the meeting “productive,” Day seemed not to have changed his mind on the gun registry issue after the discussion at Dawson.

He said Canada should be investing its resources in cracking down on gangs and gun trafficking, and in tightening gun-licensing rules.

Day’s press aide said yesterday’s meeting was part of an extensive series of countrywide discussions with stakeholders over the gun-control issue.

Progressive Gun Control: Tushnet v. Cornell:

Both scholars agreed that the actual impact of any realistically achievable gun control policy would not have the sweeping effect on reducing gun violence that most would be hoping for. However, while Tushnet saw this as one reason to not waste effort on the issue, Cornell maintained that reframing expectations about the impact of gun control policy could be part of developing a credible, progressive argument in favor of regulations.

“Credible”? Notice it not a “rational” or “persuasive” or “convincing” argument. It’s a “credible” argument. In other words it doesn’t matter if an improvement in crime rates can be measured. It’s a good thing merely because regulation is what “progressives” do and they should feel good about doing it. “Progressives” regulate–it’s in their nature. This is what I do–it’s my nature and my arguments can be “forceful”. Perhaps Mr. Cornell should further “reframe his expectations”.

Molon Labe!

I think the reality is probably close to what Dave Kopel has to say:

The Second Amendment has emerged from the biggest Democratic victory since 1974 with relatively little damage. One reason is that in races all over the country, Democrats returned to their Jefferson-Jackson roots by running candidates who trust the people to bear arms.

But that doesn’t mean we should sit back and relax. Wayne LaPierre has his own take on things:

We must start fighting today … or tomorrow, we’ll start over.

Spread the word to America’s gun owners.  If they’ve wandered away from NRA, it’s time to muster.  Sign up, recruit, enlist, renew, upgrade, get informed, get involved and get ready for battle again.

Of course Wayne has his own biases. Fear mongering helps his bottom line. But regardless of that what he says is probably good advice for gun owners. The more members the NRA has the more clout they have with the congress critters. The NRA lobbyists can really get a legislators attention by saying something like, “I have two emails already written and ready to send to our five (or seven or ten) million members. One says that you are a good guy and they should all donate $10 to your campaign. The others says you want to take their guns away and they should all donate $20 to your opponent. Maybe they won’t pay attention. Maybe it’s an empty threat but you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya punk?”