Throwing the gun registry under the bus

by Aaron Wherry

Chris Selley mocks Justin Trudeau’s latest comments on the gun registry.

On Sunday Team Trudeau tried to soften the blow. Liberals supported the registry, a spokeswoman told Sun Media, “given the absence of any responsible approach to gun violence by this government.” Now that they lost the fight, now that “the registry and its data are gone, … we now have to develop a new approach.”

Rubbish. There is no way to square Mr. Trudeau’s previous statements with his current position. The portentous, reverential terms in which Mr. Trudeau, Dr. Bennett and so many other Liberals described the registry a year ago, and before, demand they either support its re-establishment now or explain why they were in error before. Or they would if this was a debating society; in politics, you can change your mind, fudge your reasons outrageously and never have to say you’re sorry.

I’d still like Mr. Trudeau to explain his latest remarks, but Chris is right that the “portentous, reverential terms” in which the gun registry was described don’t really square with the word “failure.” The Liberal position in 2010 and 2011 was that the registry was necessary, but flawed (see page 56 of the party’s platform). And thinking about it last night, my feeling was there was a little bit of wiggle room left by Mr. Trudeau’s qualifier (“as it was”) and the lack of an explanation as to how precisely the gun registry had failed. Failed politically? Failed entirely? (Though I do enjoy pointing out contradictions, I also do tend to fuss over the details.) But maybe I was unnecessarily splitting hairs. Thinking about it now, my feeling is Chris is right: you can’t really say the gun registry “saved lives” and say it was a “failure.”




Browse

Throwing the gun registry under the bus

  1. ‘in politics, you can change your mind, fudge your reasons outrageously and never have to say you’re sorry.’

    Yup, Cons do this every day….often within the same sentence.

    • Emily, better be careful. If you become any more smug your posts will break the screen width of most browsers.

      • Heh….Cons are really sumpthin’ in this dept eh?

    • Emily, apparently Trudeau is quite ably mimicking that trait!

      • Did Chris Selley ever notice Cons doing it?

  2. Trudeau is right. We need gun control (Tories say no), the Registry is history (a fact in all but Quebec). Trudeau is honest that the Registry did not work as well as was intended.
    refreshing to see an Ottawa politician think through an issue and come up with a view to moving things forward not re-hashing past fights. Good on Justin!!

    • Sorry…but when was Justin correct? When he voted in favor of abolishing the gun
      registry or is he correct now that he is pandering for votes and suggests it was a failure and did not work?

      I am not Aaron Wherry and cannot simply ignore how someone
      votes one way and then says the complete opposite….

      • I am not Aaron Wherry and cannot simply ignore how someone
        votes one way and then says the complete opposite…

        Right because we all know there are no shades of grey in poilitcs… unles of course it happens to be YOUR team colouring the books.

    • We have gun control without the long gun registry.

  3. “Thinking about it now, my feeling is Chris is right: you can’t really say the gun registry “saved lives” and say it was a “failure.” – Aaron Wherry

    This is Aaron Wherry’s own personal flip flop after being called out and exposed for being
    the leftist media shill that he is after first attempting to defend Justin Trudeau. Now after “thinking about” (read being exposed) Wherry has realized his blatant media shilling crossed the line.

    Hey Wherry, try not to be so obvious next time you go shilling and you might get away with it as you usually do. You made a pretty rookie mistake here.

    • “I’d still like Mr. Trudeau to explain his latest remarks, but Chris is
      right that the “portentous, reverential terms” in which the gun registry
      was described don’t really square with the word “failure”

      This the quote at the start of the para that provides the context of the piece. Clearly it tries to wrestle with the apparent contradiction in Trudeau’s new position, attempting to see if there’s any wiggle room. Concluding there isn’t unless Trudeau further explains, and maybe not even then.

      Where does he choose to defend JT? [ other than musing about wiggle room here]

      How has he been “exposed” precisely? That implies someone exposed him. You may have failed to notice AW is exposing himself here. Is that what guilty shills do, or is there a rule that they must somewhere?

      No rookie anything here. As i said before – you’re simply an idiot.

  4. Should be fun watching the Liberals try to square this circle for the next couple of years. Of course nobody will take them seriously, again, because they don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Junior’s just pandering votes, and everybody can see that.

  5. “We will continue to look at ways of keeping our cities safe and making
    sure that we do address the concerns around domestic violence right
    across the country in rural as well as urban areas in which,
    unfortunately, guns do play a role. But there are better ways of keeping
    us safe than that registry.”

    I like Selly. He’s a very good moderately Conservative columnist. But it is pretty obvious what folks like him need to do…ask Trudeau what “better ways” might look like[ and how long he's thought so]. He might also like to ask what “as it was” is all about. Rather than quibble about Trudeau’s truthiness.[ which obviously looks shaky]
    I see Selley’s also the only guy i’ve seen so far to recognize Trudeau isn’t as likely to be hoist on his own petard in QC as all that. He simply needs to acknowledge that provinces have the right in this case to keep their data and start their own registry if they want to.

    Hot out of the oven…Hebert’s take.
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1297011–hebert-long-gun-registry-is-gone-but-not-the-politics

  6. No need to concern yourself Chris. The con attack ads when they appear wont contain less than handy phrases like..portentious and reverential. They’ll simply point out – with the least possible amount of context and the greatest possible degree of dripping, drooling scorn [ Trudeau will probably be falling down some stairs, and prinking his curls afterwards] – he voted for it… ergo liberals are all liars and untrustworthy. That’ll more than keep the base happy and donating.

  7. Trudeau is certainly becoming a lightning rod for the Cons…more earned media. Every challenge to his policy musings provides him with the opportunity to respond, elaborate, and counter-attack.

    Must be a little disconcerting to other leadership aspirants. He’s sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

  8. Wherry logic:

    Conservative flip-flop yesterday: farce
    Liberal flip-flop yesterday: there’s a little bit of wiggle room left

    Conservative flip-flop today: farce
    Liberal flip-flop today: maybe I was unnecessarily splitting hairs

  9. standard Liberal policy; Say Whatever you think might get you elected..
    Liberal credo : POWER AT ANY COST!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *