GOVERNING CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR (POLITICAL) HEALTH.

The House of Commons voted to repeal the Long Gun Registration Act. (It’s still only 2nd reading and has to go to committee and the Senate so there are still many hurdles ahead) I am horrified. Not by the choice to abandon a costly boondoggle, but that our politicians echo American Congressmen who vote only the way their constituents want them to. The best example is the passing i8n the House of the new Health Care legislation. Commenting is this from the New York Times: “The Democrats who balked at the measure represent mainly conservative swing districts, signaling that those who could be vulnerable in next year’s midterm elections viewed voting for the measure as politically risky. “
But we come from a long parliamentary tradition of “voting our conscience.” Yes, I know – when the party leader says “jump” you do as you are told. Party discipline often wins out. But when push comes to persuasion, it comes back to staying politically wise enough with your vote to be re-elected. But in an open vote, there is no party discipline. It comes down to doing what politicians should do best: vote for what he/she believes in.

The issue evokes the so-often-repeated stand taken by Edmund Burke, M.P. Bristol. He supported an issue related to Free Trade with Ireland. His constituents opposed him. In his famous statement he said: "If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong"
Even though Burke is considered the real founder of modern conservatism, his words ring true. He voted his conscience. It cost him his seat in the next election.

So I do wonder why of our own M.P.s there are those, especially on the Left, who voted with the government, citing the “fact” that theirs is a rural constituency and voters there own guns.
On the issue itself I have never understood the passion of the opposition. Is it because the system has already wasted $2 billion? Perhaps. Is it because, echoing the campaign by the N.R.A. claiming that that the first step in confiscating guns is registration. The NRA always cites Hitler Germany as an example of what gun registration does to the “rights” of people.

The fatal flaw in the opposition is the notion that you somehow will be deprived of your right to own a gun. If that is true we should also believe that having to register your dog will lead to confiscation of the dog. Like dogs, we like to know where the guns are. No one questions the right to own a shotgun. No one questions the right to get married either – but you do have to buy a license.
The interesting paradox here is that the most traditionally conservative group in society – the police – support gun registry and insist that it has already been helpful to them. The paradox is that the naysayers are the first to crow: “Our cops are tops.”