The point of getting rid of the gun registry was supposed to be that it criminalized farmers and hunters. But now the Conservatives are delisting sniper rifles and the kind of semi-automatic used in the Norway massacre. Why do farmers and hunters need sniper rifles that can pierce armour from a kilometre away? If the registry is to be killed, shouldn't the government tighten up other controls on dangerous weapons?
Here's three big time "conservative" scribblers take:
Barbara Kay: I think guns are fine for people who need them to hunt or just like them for shooting at targets. But I don't get the semi-automatic thing, since it's only purpose is to mow down enemies by spraying bullets around so promiscuously some of them will kill. They're unsportsmanlike for hunting, obviously, and it doesn't take any special marksmanship to use them.
Kelly McParland: The issue is whether anyone needs to own these guns. The whole anti-registry battle was fought over the issue that farmers and hunters should be allowed to have guns. But no one needs these weapons, so why aren't they just banned?
Jonathan Kay: I don't pretend to understand the gun obsession. But my sense is that gun nuts see their guns as a sort of symbolic totem that allows them to control their fate and protect themselves in a society that is chaotic and communalistic. And that the bigger the gun the more powerful is their sense of self control.
Are you frickin' kidding me?
And they wonder why their damn newspaper keeps losing money.