Category: Americas
August 3, 2008
… that one in five Canadians actually has some balls (I guess it’s better than nothing):
Now can we get some laws that will allow us to defend ourselves??
July 26, 2008
Okay, we get it. It’s a story…
July 23, 2008
 There’s somebody in the mainstream Canadian media who actually GETS IT!!
For years, various groups in this country (CanadaCarry.org is only one example) have been telling the hoplophobes that Canada is in dire need of becoming a “shall issue” jurisdiction. Not in some half-assed, who-you-know fashion, either: nation-wide. Either nobody’s been getting it, or the ones that are getting it just don’t have the balls to do anything about it.
Well, I’m tickled pink to tell you that Marty Gobin gets it, too. The proof is in today’s Windsor Star. Like I always do with really good stuff, I’m putting the whole damn thing here; before it expires on the paper’s site or disappears down some other internet black hole. Read on and enjoy (emphasis, links, pretty pics, etc. are mine; as usual):
Marty Gobin, Special to The Windsor Star
Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
In a recent Windsor Star article (“Cops see spike in number of crime-fighting do-gooders,” June 25), it was reported that there has been a rise in private citizens defending themselves or others against criminals.
Whether it was a veterinarian fighting an armed robber off with a garbage can, or a bystander chasing a violent mugger who beat a man for his prescription medications, it is clear that Canadians are responsible enough to use defensive force in a reasonable and legal fashion.
That said, it’s time that Canadians be permitted to carry weapons for defence against criminals.
This wouldn’t be such a drastic change in law. It’s already legal under Section 34 of the Criminal Code for Canadians to use necessary force to protect their life, up to and including the use of deadly force.
It’s also legal to own a firearm.
Canada even has a permitting process in place for people to carry firearms at the discretion of their provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO). [But, unless the CFO is your drinking buddy, good f*&%ing luck getting one -Dennis]
The only thing Canada would have to do to enable Canadians to better protect themselves is change the issuing process for an Authorization to Carry (ATC) from “may-issue”– a permit issued at the discretion of the CFO –to “shall-issue,” a permit which must be issued to anybody who meets clearly defined, reasonable training and background check requirements.
Such a change in the ATC-issuing process would make it more accountable, in that the CFO would have no arbitrary authority to withhold or grant the right to defend oneself. That kind of authority should never be held by any one office.
The change would also ensure that every similarly qualified and screened Canadian has an equal right under the law to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors, regardless of whether they have any political ties that would grease the wheels for a carry permit.
 Now, some of the more sensationalist politicos out there may suggest that allowing Canadians the suitable means to defend themselves would result in shootouts every day in the streets at high noon. 🙄
This kind of Chicken Little approach to the right of one to preserve his or her own life has been proven wrong time and time again south of the border. Michigan switched from “may issue” to “shall issue” permits in 2002, and yet thousands of Canadians manage to travel across the border daily without witnessing any bloodshed.
Vermont, which has no laws regulating the possession or carrying of arms by non-criminal adults, has the third lowest violent crime rate per capita in the USA. (In fairness, that could be accredited to the similarly lax regulation of public nudity in the state combined with the aging baby boomer population scaring off all of the potential muggers.)
Overall, over thirty states have gone the route of shall-issue permits since the early nineties, and none have seen fit to go back to the days of may-issue. The U.S. experiment has shown that there would be no bloodbath resulting from Canadians being allowed to protect their lives.
Not only has there been no public safety crisis as the result of Americans being able to pack heat, but there have actually been numerous potentially large-scale massacres stopped in progress by those authorized to carry a weapon. [YO! Miller! Pay attention, dipshit! -Dennis]
In 2002, a shooter on a rampage at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped after not one, but two students in different locations heard his shots and retrieved their weapons from their cars, returned, and placed him under arrest until the police arrived.
In February 2007, an off-duty out-of-area police officer who was carrying his weapon at the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City managed to keep an armed madman under fire until Salt Lake City police officers arrived to assist.
This last December, an armed man went to the New Life Church in Colorado after having left a suicide note saying he intended to kill as many people as possible.
He only managed to kill two people at the church before a parishioner shot him.
One can only imagine how these massacres would have turned out, if, like Canada, off-duty police and private citizens were not allowed to carry guns for self-defence. Certainly the murderers in each case, who were intent on committing capital crimes, would be unlikely to care whether or not any law forbade them from carrying a gun.
Both the American example and the recent case of Canadians defending themselves and others in a responsible fashion have proven that private citizens and should be trusted to carry arms without any resulting chaos.
Hopefully our legislators will, in the near future, acknowledge that Canadians have the right to defend themselves guaranteed by the Criminal Code, and modify our weapons laws so that we may have a realistic chance of exercising that right.
Marty Gobin is communications director, Ontario Libertarian Party Member, Canadian Shooting Sports Association in Whitby, Ont.
July 14, 2008
What a complete and utter crock of God damned bullshit! The Vancouver Sun had the story yesterday about 4 guys on their way to the range, minding their own business, and the abuse that they were subjected to, all in the name of our Great Anti-Gun Nanny State®.
This is a perfect example of just what the hell is wrong with all the anti-gun propaganda that proliferates throughout our country after too damned many years of meddling Letfbot rule in Ottawa and elsewhere. These guys did everything — EVERYTHING — by the book; right down to going along with the idiotic gun registry and taking more care than needed in transporting their firearms (see the photos below).
In spite of all this; what the hell happens? Some hoplophobic (son of a?) bitch sees a gun, shits his/her pants and, the next thing you know, four guys who were doing nothing but heading out for a nice, relaxing afternoon are staring down the business ends of a bunch of 12-gauges with a gaggle of jittery cops at the triggers. Just friggin’ wonderful, eh? Read the story (with my emphasis and commentary added) for yourself and then tell me: is this bullshit or is this bullshit:
VANCOUVER – Police seized five rifles and arrested four men Sunday in a dramatic takedown in the city’s West End after someone called 911 complaining about seeing a gun on the street.
 Because, as any sane person knows, just seeing a firearm can sear the soul and damn you to the Eternal Hellfires of Redneckdomâ„¢. Save me, Mister Policeman! Save my little liberal eyeballs from being violated so! Shitskulls…
Police later determined, however, that the guns were legally registered to one of the arrested men and released the four.
The weapons will remain with police until it’s determined if charges are warranted under the Firearms Act.
Oh, gee whiz, will you lookit that? Everything’s in order. Well, screw you anyway; we’re still going to shit on your rights and keep your rightful property … because we can. Heil Chretien! Viva C-68! Move along comrades, nothing to see here…
The 11 a.m. incident on Haro Street, just east of Denman, shocked residents.
“It was a little freaky, I have to say,” said Paul Kay, a supervisor at a nearby confection shop who witnessed the scene.
During the incident, police, with shotguns drawn, pulled over a black four-door SUV and ordered the men inside the vehicle to come out.
Witness Jack Simpson said he saw two young men, both Caucasians in their mid to late 20s, being taken into custody.
Police also removed four weapons from the vehicle, as well as several black boxes, Simpson said. In a media statement issued shortly after 1 p.m., Vancouver police department spokeswoman Const. Jana McGuinness said the four arrested men were released pending further investigation.
Further investigation of WHAT?!?!??? A few guys on their way to shoot some paper and clays?? See some pics from the Sun for yourself (just click on any of ’em to get a better look):
And to think, it was supposed to be a nice fun day at the range… |
Never mind that your paperwork’s in order, just get in the back and STFU
|
Looks like proper transport to me. Hell, the guy’s even got nicer cases than I do |
Eek! A gun! Scary Scary Scary! Run away before it jumps up and shoots you! |
Complete and utter bullshit. Gangbangers and assorted other scumbags routinely carry concealed and otherwise flout the law but would the cops take them down just for looking suspicious? HELL NO! It’s profiling if they’re not white.  But hey, obey all the rules and try to be a law-abiding citizen and you risk getting shot by the cops.
Being the Leftbot patsies that they are, CTV puts an even worse spin on it:
The incident began when an “alert citizen” called police after the person saw two men standing at the rear of a vehicle on Haro Street, holding a long-barreled gun, said Vancouver Const. Jana McGuinness.
[…]
But after checking police found out that the guns were legally registered to one of the men.
That doesn’t mean that the men won’t be charged…
Hey, CTV: GO BUGGER YOURSELVES! Friggin’ moonbats… CP was just as bad:
Witness Walter Muller says he saw the guns on the sidewalk, and one looked like a machine gun.
Yeah, nice going assholes. Way to scare the shit outta the sheeple. Never mind that there wasn’t a single God damned automatic weapon there! Why let a little detail like that get in the way of the Great Glorious Gun Grabber Agenda®?
But the worst — the absolute worst — had to be The Province. Dripping with fearmongering goodness, it’s enough to make Landslide Annie reach for her vibrator…
“One of them looked like a machine-gun, and some of them had super scopes on them,” said West End resident Walter Muller. “The scary part is we could be caught in the crossfire.
Really, Walter? And just what kind of “machine gun” did it look like? And just WTF is a “super scope??” Why is this alleged media outlet quoting some dumbass who clearly doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground? Oh, but it gets better…
“With those weapons, serious things were going to happen.”
 Like WHAT, you hoplophobic, agenda-driven son of a bitch?
Oh, wait, I get it now. How could I have missed it before? I must be getting old. I didn’t catch it at first but, now that I’ve had another look at all those photos, I see it plain as day:
They’re all white. With crewcuts or even (gasp!) shaved heads! And at least one of them even has tattoos!! Clearly, such men are the bane of civilization and we can never be too vigilant, whether it be in keeping an eye on them or just plain arbitrarily confiscating their stuff. After all, it’s not as if they have RIGHTS or anything.
 When is this bullshit going to stop, you ask? Simple: when gun owners across the country finally stand up and shout, in one voice: “Enough! We are SICK and TIRED of being your God damned scapegoats! You want our guns? Well, SCREW YOU! ΜΟΛΩΠΛΑΒΕ!!”
Am I being radical? Am I being scary? Tough shit. We’ve been getting screwed in the arse by the do-nothings of this country — and for crimes we didn’t even commit!— for decades so that those parasitic bastards could give the illusion that they’re doing something to make us safe. I, for one, am nearing the end of my rope.
 Every time some Leftbot special interest group holds a “protest rally” where the media outnumber the “protesters,” it’s national news and the Nanny State acolytes flock to it like maggots to a dead fish. What do you think would happen if just one percent of us were to hold a march, proudly displaying our guns? What would those totalitarian bastards do in the face of twenty thousand armed citizens?
Just wondering… 😉
July 13, 2008
 Those of you who read here, know that I have some mixed feelings about La Belle Province. Sometimes, I really, really want to just bitch-slap Quebec, en masse. Other times, I just love the hell outta the little buggers.
This is one of the latter.
On the one hand, they can be like the surly teenager who lives in the basement, demanding to be let do his own thing but refusing to live by the rules of the parents who actually pay the damned bills. On the other hand, they are capable of some astounding antibullshit from time to time. Today’s editorial in the Montreal Gazette is one such example (my emphasis, of course):
The way Canadians and their government deal with refugee claimants is still, as it has long been, an incoherent muddle of exceptions, special pleading, unverifiable claims, activism, confusion and foolishness.
Politically unpalatable though it might be, somebody needs to drain this swamp, and that somebody will have to be the federal government.
Several recent cases illustrate the problem:
U.S. Army Private Joshua Key deserted, came to Canada, and claimed refugee status, saying that in Iraq he had witnessed looting and violations of human rights. His refugee claim was rejected, but a judge allowed him to stay in Canada anyway.
An un-named Colombian denied refugee status in the U.S. said the “r” word here. Despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. have a “safe haven” agreement governing such cases, a Canadian court said he could stay. Last week a higher court overruled this validation of “asylum shopping,” but activist groups are complaining; the case may not be over.
Even when a bogus claimant loses his appeals, he can find a way to stay.
In British Columbia, Laibar Singh, an Indian who entered Canada with false papers, remains holed up in a Sikh temple. After the laborious hearing and appeals process, he was ordered deported from Canada, but ignored the order. In Canada he became ill and is now paralyzed. Immigration officials have been unable to summon the courage to arrest and deport him, even though he moves frequently from one refuge to another.
In Montreal, another failed refugee claimant, Algerian Abdelkader Belaouni, remains holed up in St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church despite an expulsion order, having slipped into Canada after his U.S. visa expired. Here again, immigration officials defer to the medieval superstition that a place of worship should provide immunity from the law.
At least those two say where they are. An alarming 41,000 people ordered deported from this country – many of them criminals – have just vanished.
There are far too many cases such as those mentioned above, and each time a judge, a pastor, or anyone else puts knee-jerk “compassion” above the rule of law, Canada loses something.
Canadians like to think of ourselves as generous and compassionate people, but where can we draw the line between being welcoming and being suckers? If our refugee-determinations come to be based on simply accepting everyone who gets here and wants to stay, what will the consequences be? Do we want to accept deserters into Canada? From the U.S. alone, or from everywhere? If we do that, how can we think of imposing any penalty on deserters from the Canadian Forces?
Do we really want to allow the unpopularity of the Iraq war in Canada to lead us to treat the U.S. armed forces as somehow illegitimate? Even if we did, shouldn’t this be articulated and regulated by Parliament, rather than by anyone with room in his church basement?
Immigration, including refugee policy, must be based on rules, not on individuals. If it’s not based on rules, then it’s not law.
It’s past time for Canadian refugee law to be clarified, improved, and then enforced with determination and vigour.
Yup; sometimes ya just gotta love the li’l French bastards… 😉
« Previous Page — Next Page »
|
