Return of Long Gun Registry

[trimmer21]

This tells us voters don't much care. And when voters don't care, politicians don't care.

Voters DO care,though,and have said so,loud and clear. Politicians have read the wind and know they'll cause everyone a lot of needless grief and look like bald-faced liars if they revive the LGR in any form. Politicians are opportunistic ho's that would enact anything if they thought,for one second,that there'll be political "gain". That's why I believe that we must NEVER let this issue simply "fade away."

[Karl Marques]

Voters DO care,though,and have said so,loud and clear. Politicians have read the wind and know they'll cause everyone a lot of needless grief and look like bald-faced liars if they revive the LGR in any form. Politicians are opportunistic ho's that would enact anything if they thought,for one second,that there'll be political "gain". That's why I believe that we must NEVER let this issue simply "fade away."

Amen brother! Testify!

[welsh]

Voters DO care,though,and have said so,loud and clear.

Voters who are opposed to a registry certainly care ... but I meant the wider mass of the public, who see it as a non-issue at the moment.

I would also say that if a new government was to try to restore the LGR, you would see a backlash from the mushy middle, the folks who don't much care. They'd be asking why we were spending all this money again.

There is no upside for any party in bringing back the LGR, only downside.

[terrym]

The never ending mass shootings in America will likely make voters more likely to support "any" kind of gun control. Expect the politicians to capitalize on that.

[MikePal]

. That's why I believe that we must NEVER let this issue simply "fade away."

Seems that it never does, from both sides...

[welsh]

The never ending mass shootings in America will likely make voters more likely to support "any" kind of gun control.

We're not really seeing that. Canadians seem happy to consider this an American problem at the moment.

[terrym]

We're not really seeing that. Canadians seem happy to consider this an American problem at the moment.

i wonder if JT will lose some traction after the Oregon shootings? In the last debate he tried to label Harper as paranoid and that there isn't really that much evil today. Within a week another mass shooting. Some might look at that and wonder who was right Harper or JT?

[MikePal]

. Some might look at that and wonder who was right Harper or JT?

I don't think there's too many people left that think JT is right about anything... haha

I see Obama has still refused to acknowledge that the issue is related to radical Islamic extremists, on U.S. soil... he's still holding the line that it's a gun violence issue...

[terrym]

I don't think this nut was a Muslim. Just hated Cristians and apparently every firearm he had was bought legally.

[awndray]

I see Obama has still refused to acknowledge that the issue is related to radical Islamic extremists, on U.S. soil... he's still holding the line that it's a gun violence issue...

Because it's not.

In a tragedy that has become all too common in the states, 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer opened fire yesterday on Oregon’s Umpqua Community College campus armed with several handguns and one long gun. The most recent reports indicate that ten people lost their lives and many more were injured. While much of the response was predictable and repetitive — promises of prayers, political battle cries from both sides of the aisle regarding gun control, etc. — there is one specific detail of the story that has featured prominently in media coverage across the board. As the Washington Post reports, Mercer may have been targeting Christians explicitly.

As members of the media and armchair detectives scrambled to learn more about the man with an axe to grind with Christians, another tidbit came to light that seemed to solidify this story as one of Christian persecution. On a free dating website called Spiritual Passions, Mercer identified himself as “Not Religious, but Spiritual” on his profile. He was also listed in a group on the site called “Doesn’t Like Organized Religion.” As the profile made the rounds last night, the dominant narrative was that an atheist had targeted Christians in an act of terrible violence.

But is that really why Mercer did what he did?

[....]

Based on what we’ve learned so far, blaming his supposed atheism requires acceptance of a lot of flimsy evidence, while other possible motivations are readily available.

Let’s be clear: what happened in Oregon yesterday is incredibly tragic. Yes, let’s mourn the lives lost and celebrate those who showed courage under fire. But before you assert that this is somehow proof of some contrived “War on Christianity,” you’d do well to take a step back and take a look at the whole picture. This isn’t the smoking gun you thought it was.

Read the whole thing - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...-the-evidence/