This week in gun registry punditry

The gun registry goes to a vote tomorrow, ending a summer of speculation on its fate.

The first big showdown of the new session of Parliament is tomorrow, when the outcome of a tight vote will decide the fate of the long-gun registry. Pundits have spilled barrels of ink on the issue this summer (or barrels of gigabytes), and assuming that if they’re not tired of writing about it you’re not tired of reading about it, here’s what they’re saying today.

In The Mark, Barbara Falk reiterates the age-old argument that we should accept gun licences just like we accept driving licences. Automobiles “like guns, are status symbols and markers of deep cultural significance,” she writes, “yet we recognize their potential for danger.” The registry wouldn’t have caused a stir if it weren’t “a convenient wedge issue in a fractious minority parliament to cater to a largely rural Canadian ‘base’ that irrationally sees red whenever the issue is discussed.”

“Both the major national parties … have bungled this terribly,” writes the Toronto Sun’s Michael Den Tandt. “It’s a strange day indeed when Gentleman Jack Layton emerges … as the only party leader who seems to know what he’s doing and why.” While Layton has stuck to his principles, Michael Ignatieff has stubbornly stuck by a registry which doesn’t work. Meanwhile Stephen Harper forced the NDP to support the registry by launching “a public Jihad” on NDPers who were on the fence.

John Ivison in the National Post says opposition to the registry “is fundamentally a protest against lawmakers who have forgotten that the purpose of the law is not to tell people how to live their lives.” He compares it to the British ban on fox hunting that became a symbol of government arrogance even for people who didn’t hunt. This feeling of political alienation is spreading, Ivison says. “From the Tea Party in the U.S. to the Wild Rose Party in Alberta; from Rob Ford’s mayoral campaign in Toronto to the anti-HST movement in B.C., there seems to be a growing feeling that government is no longer for the people, by the people.”