. . . you know someone has bitten off a hunk of burning stooopid.
Here's one of them opining on the long-gun registry. First he (probably) outlines how everybody in Canada -- except the Frenchies and who gives a shit about them? -- is on side with scrapping the registry because everybody knows that those darned criminals just won't register their deer rifles. Then, with breathtaking (well, for a BT) clarity, he (surely) goes on:
So - with things going our way, what do we do?
* we build more prisons that we don't need, throwing money away while running a massive deficit, based upon ideological motivations unsupported by any evidence that more prisons will make us safer, based upon Stockwell Day's comments that they are to address "unreported crime"- hence taking away any "high ground" we otherwise have in the argument against spending money on "crime reduction" without evidence to support that crime is reduced
* on the virtual eve of what appears to be a probable successful vote to scrap the registry,we fire the R.C.M.P. head of the registry;
* after receipt of a report on the registry, which is suggested to be positive, we appear to bury the report until after the vote, and when called on this, the response of Vic Toews is “Canadians don’t need another report to know that the long-gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.”
Really Vic? How 'bout letting me and other Canadians decide what we "need", pal?
Because, while I'm no genius, I'm thinking if the report comes out later and is positive, it will give the hapless Michael Ignatieff yet another weapon to use to suggest the Conservatives are secretive and not to be trusted.
Gee, ya think?
But how the heck can the report be 'positive' if the gun registry is such a blight on our liberties?
The blogger says that they'll just explain that the report isn't really positive and then everyone can continue blithely ignoring all the facty-sciency-experty stuff they don't like.