In the comments, Bryceman asks for help;
I have a question for my fellow conservatives. 99% of the time, I can handle myself well in a political discussion/debate on any of the hot-button topics of the day. And I can usually send the more left-leaning of my political adversaries to the defensive. Not in a bad way. Most of the people I discuss politics with are very cool and reasonable people who will give and take political points on grey-area issues. These aren’t knock-down, drag-out arguments with extremists…just friendly debate.
But, there is one approach to one topic that I never have a very good come-back for. It’s about gun control.
Now, I don’t actually own any firearms. While I have not kept the tradition alive, I come from a long line of hunters. I used to be certified to handle and carry guns (except for restricted weapons). But, my old certification was declared null and void (thank-you Mr. Rock) because I hadn’t had it since before 1979.
So, I have to take it all over again. And I will – since I am set to inherit some guns that have been in my family – some of them going back as far as the 1870’s.
Anyway, when something like the Dawson College incident happens, I always react by saying, “Hunters and farmers from BC to Newfoundland will be made to pay for this.”
And my “less-right” political sparring partners respond by posing questions like, “Yeah. But, in today’s world, what do we need guns for anyway? And what’s the limit on what kind of guns a person should be allowed to own? Should they be allowed to own a tank? How about a SAM launcher?”
I’m never able to answer these kinds of questions to my own satisfaction. I never get that “slam-dunk” feeling when arguing back. Sure, I can go on about the creeping nature of the state unecessarily taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in a hollow response to a problem (like Dawson) that has nothing to do with them. But, I can’t go much further without my own argument sounding weak – even to me. Second Ammendment arguments don’t have any relevance in Canada. And, as I am a prime example, the argument that there is a need to hunt for you and your family’s food is all but gone in the modern world.
Has anyone got a suggestion on how to answer this one better?
Yes, I do. Concede the point.
“I agree. There is no need in today’s world for a citizen to own a gun.”
Having come to agreement that “need” is the threshold for a citizen’s right to own a firearm, the discussion is ready to move forward.
Announce to your friend that you are ready to accompany them to their home. You will begin with an inspection of the kitchen, and from there, will work your way through their house, tagging each possession you believe they do not need in “today’s world”.
Don’t forget the garage.
There’s no logical reason to limit the inspection to possessions that pose a threat as weapons. With the consequences that await society from global warming, and the alarming increase in energy consumption, those homes with a television in every room, two cars in the garage, and appliances of pure convenience – food processors, cappuccino makers – cappuccino makers! – must come under review.
Tagged items will then be removed to a truck and taken to a location for safe disposal.
Explain that only possessions for which you determine there is current need will be allowed to remain – the “greater good” is not open to negotiation. You might point out that this position is perfectly consistant with your friend’s determination that there is no “need” to own a firearm. The only thing that has changed is the person doing the determining.
(In addition to those tagged for immediate seizure, items with the potential to become unecessary in the “today’s world” of tomorrow will be recorded in a registry. In that way, future unecessaries may be confiscated more efficiently. Some accomodation may be made for heirlooms and items with sentimental importance – antique automobiles, plasma tv’s, recreational vehicles – so long as they are rendered permanently inoperable. Plus, they’ll need a permit.)
When you are interrupted – and you will be interrupted – ask your friend this;
If “need” is to be a criteria for the private ownership of property, then what’s so damned special about guns? And if the definition of a citizen’s “need” is at the perogative of the state, then what’s so damned special about yours?
OK Kate. Mea culpa. You refined your point in your follow up and I now see the distinction I missed in the main entry.
Such being the case though, I might point out that darn near all of us who posted on this thread seemed to have missed your distinction (given that you and Karl were the first to offer the re-direct).
At any rate, it was never my intention to stir up such a maelstrom. Accordingly, I’ll make this my last post in this thread.
Cheers.
Skip,
Here is 1 example, a true story.
I visited a co-worker’s house a few years ago. After a couple of shots of whiskey he took me to a closet and showed me various handguns he purchased in Buffalo then smuggled across the border. No license, no permit and no registration.
I asked him why he just didn’t buy them in Canada with permits. His answer was, as a convicted crimminal he was not allowed to own guns. Our friendship didn’t last long after that!
Gun ownership in the absence of government control…gun anarchy.
We should get back to the essence of Kate’s thesis.
Finish the story Mr.Brown.
And you immediatly did what?
Dropped him as a friend or reported what you saw?
If you failed at the latter you are as much a problem as he is.
So David Brown, what did you do to ensure government control of your co-worker’s illegal possession of unregistered handguns?
I’m guessing from what you said, no matter what you claim now, is the extent of it was to end your friendship.
No wonder you like a system where a nanny state automatically assumes control.
We need gun for selfdefense becuase the police cant be in two places at one time and we dont need wealthy jerks like GEORGE SOROS,andrew McKELVEY or TED KENNEDY to tell us otherwise and if these jerks cant read what the cosntitution says about selfdefense then i suggest they go live in a place far away from here
Hey everyone.
A bunch of guys just got handed their ass to them, by a girl.
Again.
“Gun ownership in the absence of government control…gun anarchy.”
No David.
Thats called gun smuggling in the absence of a pair of balls.
Or a brain.
Yours.
Yes, I understood Kate’s original point. But, that portion of the argument will still get a roll of the eyes from the lefties and a “Oh come on…be serious” response.
As a rule, conservatives resist liberal “progressive” laws (which are always restrictive) because we know that, when it comes to liberal restrictions “It is NEVER the end…it is always only the beginning.”
When abortion was first becoming legal, conservatives argued that if we as a society come to view it as acceptable, then someday, there would be women using it as a form of birth control. The liberal answer was “Oh come on…be serious. We’re not animals. That’ll never happen.” We all know that it turned out to be true.
When same-sex marriage was being debated, I actually saw a debate on Global where some gay guy and a priest were arguing. The priest said that he didn’t care about legal and CPP survivor rights being extended to gays…but, he was worried that by redefining the actual word “marriage”, there would come a day when the gay and lesbian community would start suing the church for discrimination. The gay guy reacted with “Oh come on…that’ll never happen.” It’s been more than a year since I checked…but the last time I looked, there were 5 active law-suits in Canada going on under that very premise.
Most conservatives are opposed to euthanasia being legalized because we are afraid that it will one day lead to people being expected to do the “honorable thing” and release their family from the burden of caring for the terminally ill. The liberal response is, once again, “that’ll never happen.”
I understood Kate’s point…and it was bang-on. But, it won’t stop the lefties from responding with, “Oh come on…state intervention on the energy consumption of a cappuccino machine will never be an issue like gun control.”
We might know different…but we can’t make them see.
Bravo! Kate.
Brilliant!
By this definition, we could go and legalize hand grenades, Kalashnikovs, mortar shells, plastic explosives, and plutonium.
And, what the hell, let’s include crack cocaine and heroin on the list, why don’t we?
Because dammit, just because we don’t NEED something and because it can fire two rounds a second through a school cafeteria, doesn’t meant the doggone gub’mint should go around messin’ with our right to own it.
This from the same crowd that wants kids tossed in jail for smoking a joint.
Pathetic.
ud513, exactly. If Canada ENFORCED the laws of the land we WOULD be the peace loving country the Liberals claim we are. Intentionally allowing a country, any country, to fall into lawlessness and the people will beg the govt for “help”.
My father was a Volga German who came from Russia. Their family owned a couple of guns at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. The soldiers came to them and documented the assets (animals, etc) that the family owned. They also included guns in that documentation. A while later, the soldiers came back and took everything…including the guns….which they then used on a couple of the family members. Part of the family then got out of Russia and eventually ended up in Alberta. I bring this up because my Dad would get into debates about gun control years ago (my Dad was a big hunter). There was always some smart ass who would bring up gun control as a bright idea and my Dad would relate the story about the Bolsheviks. The invariable comment from the smart ass would always be something like “well, that can’t happen here and now”. My Dad would answer back, “Do you think we thought it could happen there and then”?
Most guns are simply stored for years. But the time may well come when you wish you had one. Could you imagine a situation like the hurricane in New Orleans? If I were in a situation like that, I would certainly want to have a gun. After all, no matter what the left would like us to think, the state cannot look after us all the time. There are times when we are going to have to look after ourselves…at times like that, I would want to have a gun. If for no other reason, it is insurance against the worst….much like some financial analysts advise you to always have a small amount of gold….”just in case”. And to those who believe in a “benevolent government”…they are not always that way.
If God wanted us to harvest our own meat, why did He create it shrink-wrapped on styrofoam trays?
Yes, I’m the real problem in this instance!
A person I work with is in possesion of illegal firearms and I didn’t report it. Looking back that’s exactly what I should of done…hindsight is 20/20 sometimes.
Shame on me but the point that gun anarchy exists is still made.
The problem isn’t the automobile, it’s the driver.
The problem isn’t the alcohol, it’s the drinker.
The problem isn’t the penis, it’s the owner.
The problem isn’t the religion, it’s the fanatics.
The problem isn’t the gun, it’s the finger owner.
The problem isn’t the good looking women, it’s the pervert with his lust problem. Monica should have had a Burqua !!??
Karl > “The lifestyle choice of the aforementioned couple [lawyers, SUVs, monster house, energy pigs] is selfish, and short sighted, but as a free society we all have to put up with the fact that some folks will make this choice…”
Karl, while I agree with much of what you say – this comes off as the kind of smug judgementalism concerning others’ hypothetical ‘selfishness’ that fuels lefty egalitarian extremism. That free enterprise and free choice effectively harness natural ‘selfish’ impulses to the benefit of all is central to freedom’s magnificent success. Such choices are not a downside, something we have to “put up with” in a free society. They’re part of its essence.
And if your co-workers guns kill a Toronto school girl somewhere down the line thats OK by you right David?
Let all those redneck farmers and hunters pay the price, right David?
The duck hunters are the problem arent they David?
Maybe the billion dollars was wasted so gutless idiots like you can sleep at night.
Maybe a billion isnt enough…
One issue I don’t see noted above. If there was a total ban on gun ownership, AND if they secured the border so well that no guns could be imported, then I tell you, WE WOULD SEE GUNS BEING HOME-MADE.
Once a technology is understood, if people see it as being of significant value to them, they will use it, whether it be to create a terrorist nuke or a homemade hand-gun.
Twenty years ago, it was reported that guns were being made in mud huts in Afghanistan out of rail-road steel. Is the criminal element in Canada any less resourceful?
Jeff seems to lack understanding about the nature of firearms, he states: “a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn’t matter what. “.
Wrong. A firearm utilizes a portable means of generating very high pressure gas to impart high velocity to a projectile which is released along a user controlled ballistic path from the barrel of the firearm. In this sense, a firearm is most closely related to an internal combusion engine which also utilizes controlled explosions to impart energy to pistons. Both are pieces of precision machinery.
Jeff (like many hoplophobes) can’t seem to understand the distinction between the underlying form of an object and the functions to which it may be put. Yes, guns can be used to kill people, but to those of us who view the problem of terminating ongoing physiologic processes in an individual, a high velocity round to the brain is but one of the exceedingly large number of methods that can be used to disrupt normal physiologic functioning. I should also note that most of these methods are perfectly legal including smashing someone over the head hard enough with a capuccino maker.
Jeff is projecting his fears on an inanimate object. A gun is a precision piece of machinery, work of arm, usefull tool, paperweight,etc. Individuals who have some pathologic thoughts about ananimate objects shouldn’t own guns, but I’m not going to let their irrational fears take away my rights. Sarah Thompson is a psychiatrist who has written a very good article about the psychopathology of those seeking to eliminate firearms entitled “Raging against self defence. A psychiatrist examines the anti-gun mentality. It can be found at:
http://www.rationalistparty.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=952&sid=bb761973453097c0c82bd02cba7527ac
The right to bare arms, which has always existed for free people doesn’t date to the second amendment, they only wrote it down. The right to bare arms seperates citizens from slaves.
Regardless of what illegal purposes others choose to use guns for it should not impinge on my right to own and use them as I legally see fit. It should be relatively easy for you liberal fascists to google previous countries and see what happens after a gun registry has been in existence for any amount of time… Eventually a government comes along that decides the “natives” are growing restless and it is time to remove their “teeth”. Governments should be afraid of its citizens and not the other way around.
I know you left wing zealots HATE Americans, but the fact of the matter is that they have a constitution that was drafted by brilliant men that truly had the best interests of the country in mind.
As has been proven time after time, tighter gun controls result in a subsequent increase in violent crime. England, Australia, Nazi Germany, Somalia, the list goes on. States that allow concealed carry of firearms have all either shown a decrease in crime or no effect.
It should also be pointed out that it was a GUN (yes an evil GUN) that killed Kimveer and prevented the death of how many more innocent people.
Rather than asking for tighter gun controls I think people should be using this event to loosen gun controls so that all repsonsible law abiding citizens have the right to carry for the protection of themselves and their fellow man. (Oh by the way, 11% of police shootings resulted in an innocent person being shot while only 2% of civilian shootings resulted in an innocent person being shot in the States where a firearm was used for defence)
At any rate. Should the government decide to ban semi auto’s they have a handy list of everyone that owns one and can easily confiscate them as they see fit.
Thanks for the great post Kate.
To those that see no problem with their neighbour surrendering property for no other reason than
fear, I hope you don’t expect neighbourly concern in return because your only entitled to it in your fantasy land.
ud513,
You certainly have a vivid imagination and draw some hasty conclusions.
You forgot, the duck hunters are not the problem, it’s the ducks.
I don’t know if guns make people safer from crime – and really I don’t care. I also don’t care if guns are great tools for hunting, not a hunter myself, but I don’t disparage those who are.
What I do care about is the fact that guns in the hands of citizens are what bought me the freedom I use to criticize those who criticize guns.
Ask these liberals if OKA had good results, i.e. look at the status of native land claims before OKA and look at them after. That gain (like it or not) was bought with guns in the hands of Canadian Residents.
Look at our democracy, if it weren’t for an armed militia of British subjects fighting it’s way down Yonge Street in Toronto back in the 1830’s, Michaelle Jean would be ruling over us like a dictator.
Look at the residential schools, imagine what an armed native population could have done to stop that. Imagine an indian agent coming on to a reserve to take children away, and imagine that man facing a dozen natives with rifles. Would he have got the kid? Would we be paying out compensation now?
Guns are a neccesary good and are the last check on a neccesary evil – the government.
If these liberals are still not on side, ask them where their heroes: Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Pelltier, Che Guevara would be if it weren’t for guns. Likely where Che Guevara is right now … moulding away in a shallow grave.
It’s not up to me to prove firearms are not bad, it’s liberals’ job to prove the government is not now, nor ever will be a danger to any citizen or group of citizens.
Stand fast*, Prime Minister Harper. …-
PM rejects calls to keep registry
Toronto Star, Canada – 58 minutes ago
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper today
rejected calls to reconsider scrapping the gun
registry in the week[sic] of last week’s Montreal school shooting. …-
google news
*Mr. Standfast by John Buchan – Project Gutenberg
Download the free eBook: Mr. Standfast by John Buchan.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/560
You wanna know why I need a gun? All you warm and fuzzy lefties decided it was a wonderful idea to ban the spring bear hunt. Now the black bear population is out of control and we daily have bears wandering through town.
That’s why I need a gun. To protect my children and my neighbours from a black bear problem you urban comunists in Toronto created.
Handguns have no place, they have only one purpose. They are extremely portable, concealable and in some circles, fahionable.
Restricting long guns won’t stop another Dawson, a car will plow through a crowd of people or some other tradgedy will occur instead.
Severely more exteme and harsh criminal penalties related to gun laws (bordering inhumane) might be a start.
I would say the problem is your thought process, not with you DB.
An over reliance on regulation of firearms as a solution to violence, a willingness to surrender oneself up to the gentle care of the state.
Once government has determined that the baseline for authorized ownership of property is determined by a citizen’s “need”, the policy is easily extended to apply to any property. And if you accept the state has the right to decide if I “need” to own a gun, then you must also accept that the state has the right to decide what any citizen “needs” to own, and it need not be confined to guns, or other weaponry
you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public’s safety at large. no more guns.
I have found that certain brands of toilet paper are quite hard on my ass. Where is the government to regulate toilet paper softness??
Boiled down to its base parts, gun control is a centralized solution to a distributed problem. You make a list of everybody willing to admit they own a gun, in the faint hope that criminals will be too afraid of the police to have an illegal gun.
Which is the usual socialist response to any social issue. It does nothing to solve the problem, but with enough propaganda that doesn’t matter.
Put another way, socialists are quite happy to have Kimveer Gill shoot up his school so long as it gives them a photo-op for their gun control hobby horse. They don’t want to solve the problem, they want to be seen Doing Something About It (TM).
Something else I’ve seen on various blogs is calls for the government to start screening places like MySpace.com and VampireFreaks or whatever for potential Kimveer Gill types. Make a list of people who say unpleasant things and then “investigate” them. AKA roust ’em and let them know they are being watched. Again, won’t solve the problem but it sure will make for really good TV coverage every time they bust some guy with two rifles and a big mouth.
Distributed (and rare!) occurences such as ol’ Kimveer require a distributed solution. Armed citizens are one such solution.
Based on my research into the matter over the years I don’t think restricting gun ownership nor de-restricting it actually does anything to crime rates in and of itself. As the old saying goes, guns don’t prevent crimes, people do. Restricting gun ownership tells people that the government doesn’t trust them and they better not interfere. Opening gun ownership sends the reverse message: interfere away dudes, we will back you up.
Free people who make their own decisions are scarier to thugs than non-free ones who have to call Nanny for help. That would be my guess.
So Jeff, if the government decides you don’t need a car because that will reduce car accidents, that’ll be ok then eh?
And it’ll still be ok when you’re biking to work in a snow storm in January, right?
“you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public’s safety at large. no more guns. ”
No offence jeff, but these are the kind of comments that scare the hell out of me. “People that are willing to give up their freedom and liberty in exchange for their safety deserve neither.” Benjamin Franklin
The quote is approximate but feel free to look it up. It’s well known.
The gun regi is a joke. They can regi my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
A man with a gun is a citizen
A man without one is a subject
Terrorists with knives hijacked the jetliners that crashed into the towers on 9/11. Knives are quiet . Knives are more efficient than guns .Knives don’t run out of bullets.Knives can make a horrible mess . Knives don’t make a loud noise . Women don’t associate knives with phallic symbols.
All citizens who own guns have equality with each other. Those without guns hope for equality with each other. Citizens without guns have to hope for good government. Citizens with guns can demand good government. BTW I made my first gun/cannon at age twelve.
Pre-emptive disclosure: I bought my first shotgun at the age of 16 at a barbershop! got my first fishing pole there too. Learned gun safety through cadets. Learned to respect the tool and to be responsible. Responsibly for my own actions, what a concept.
One (of many) jokes about the touted long gun registry is that first nations people do not have to register as it goes back to the days they hunted and fished for subsistance where as the white settlers shopped at Safeway or Sobey’s.
Having the government decide what I ‘need’ and what personal property of mine they can take away smacks as against everything democracy and freedom stands for. Next thing you know they will be telling Canadians just what they can watch or listen to. Ooops, too late. The CRTC is a great example of freedom lost. Thou shalt have xx% Canadian content even if it means watching reruns of Anne of Green Gables over and over.
Handguns have a place for those who work in the bush, when a rifle or shotgun may be too clumsy to be easily carried, as a defense against predators.
They also have a place for those who enjoy the challenge of target shooting, or for those who don’t have a blind faith in the state’s ability to protect them in their own homes.
Chainsaws are powerful and valuable tools. They can be found on most farms and in homes where wood is cut for fireplaces or heating systems. They are also the principal cutting tool for nearly half of the commercial timber produced in Minnesota.
However, despite the benefits of chainsaw use, the potential for accidents while using a chainsaw is high, and injuries sustained are usually severe.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the number of chainsaw accidents requiring medical attention increased from 70,000 to 135,000 annually over a five-year period. These accidents appear to be increasing at the alarming rate of 10 percent per year.
In Minnesota, fatality reports show that during a five-year period 19 people died. Seventeen, or nearly 90 percent, of the chainsaw deaths resulted from trees or branches falling on workers as they used a chainsaw.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD2487.html
Better ban them too way more dangerous than guns. Mind you the house might get alittle cold. And that dead branch might fall during a heavy and wreck your new beemer. But hey.
Frank – my thoughts exactly
ken melrose – here is my question. What makes you think that tougher sentences are going to stop anything? I find it funny on a forum where most people posting complain that the gun registry will not stop the unlawful use of guns, people still believe stricter sentences will. There is virtually no evidence that increasing sentences prevents crime. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Deterrence does not work – period. While increased sentencing for gun crimes is not something I necessarily disagree with, I see that as a reflection of society’s abhorance with the use of such a deadly weapon in furtherance of a crime.
If I had my druthers, we would put our efforts into preventing the crime rather than reacting to it afterwards.
If the sentence deterred the crime, there would be no murders in Texas now would there. They execute people at an alarming rate there, and yet people still keep killing each other…
Texas Canuck brings up an important point regarding the gun registry and the lack of a requirement for certain people to register.
If the registry is all about safety does anyone one have any statistics on how many shootings occur on reserves? What’s the justification for exempting Natives from the requirement, the burgeoning firearms industry that greeted the initial European explorers?
If one truly has faith in the registry it is hard to imagine a legitmate reason for leaving groups of people exempt from it, seems like a very convenient source for those who want weapons they might otherwise be denied.
“you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public’s safety at large. no more guns.”
Great we have our first volunteer.
Tell the entire world where you live so we can check you off the list and grant you status of Safe home with “no guns” inside, jeff.
Better yet, put a sign on your door admitting you are unarmed and that I am at absolutely no risk of being shot by the residents once access has been gained.
I would feel much safer, jeff, thanks.
At the risk of not only sounding, but actually being, cold, callous, and hard-hearted…
…almost every poster is operating, tacitly or not, as if there is a “continuum of horror”, with the death of a person (the adjective ‘innocent’ is oh-so-frequently used!) being the ultimate in evil. The “left” justifies state control (of just about everything – check your infant seat laws recently?) based on this presumption.
This presumption is invalid. We on the “right” used to understand this. Most do so no longer.
Ironically, this explains why the unborn are not people (to most on the left), and why the radical-left consider the infirm-elderly as likewise unworthy of life.
Weapons are a direct way of killing people. Not all killing is murder (another ‘fine’ distinction). Therefore weapons restriction arguments based on primary purpose are also invalid.
By all means, let’s keep guns out of the hands of idiots…starting with the criminals. Justice reform, anyone?
jeff
Thanks for standing up and declaring your allegiance to Bolshevism. What will you say when they don’t come for your neighbours but for you? “But, but, but, I am FOR the revolution!” It’s been tried before, and it failed. Night of the Long Knives, Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s many, many, many purges.
Jeff, we need guns to protect us from people like you. It’s always nice to know the enemy, you go on the list next to Naomi Klein and Osama.
Gayle, The fact that if bubba the armed robber gets 5 years for robbery AND another 5 years for using a gun in the commission of a crime then that lowlife will not be on the streets bothering you. This assumes that the sentences are carried out consecutively not concurrently, which is a crock in the first place. I’m not taking into account the parole system which is another rant all together.
Fact: In Texas, anyone convicted of a capital offence and has had their sentence carried out will not be bothering you or anyone else… ever.
Don’t shoot at politicians or tax collectors while you are drunk. Intoxication can cause disequilibrium, and you might miss.
Seriously, if you hear the tinkle of broken glass right now, while you are reading my post, along with insane rabid screaming, “I’m gonna cut the bitch’s head off! Allah be praised! Islam is the religion of peace! When my blade is rusty, I make it bright with the blood of my enemies!”
What are you going to do?
1. You’ve made provisions in your will for law enforcement to use hot pink when they make the chalk outline around your body.
2. Make one last noble and heroic effort to contact Pierre Pettigrew.
3. Grab your piece and deprive the Liberal Party of one more voter.
If you chose 1. or 2., then you’re a candidate for the Darwin Award. If you chose 3., I hope you’ll move down the street, because my family and I are going to be safer with you in the neighborhood.
A number of years ago, I saw your countryman Peter Jennings run an anti-gun special back when “assault weapons” were making the news.
The urbane Peter was surprised when one that he had counted on actually approved of gun ownership.
I was amused when he remarked, “Couldn’t you have used a baseball bat or something?” Now there’s the enlightened and civilized way to handle someone trying to kill you or your family. Don’t put a few rounds through them like some kind of barbarian. Leap across your couch at 3 in the morning and turn their face into spaghetti sauce with a baseball bat.
Go Grandma!! By the time you’re finished you won’t be able to tell his sex or race. Thank God we’ve crawled out of the jungle!
Don’t shoot at politicians or tax collectors while you are drunk. Intoxication can cause disequilibrium, and you might miss.
Seriously, if you hear the tinkle of broken glass right now, while you are reading my post, along with insane rabid screaming, “I’m gonna cut the bitch’s head off! Allah be praised! Islam is the religion of peace! When my blade is rusty, I make it bright with the blood of my enemies!”
What are you going to do?
1. You’ve made provisions in your will for law enforcement to use hot pink when they make the chalk outline around your body.
2. Make one last noble and heroic effort to contact Pierre Pettigrew.
3. Grab your piece and deprive the Liberal Party of one more voter.
If you chose 1. or 2., then you’re a candidate for the Darwin Award. If you chose 3., I hope you’ll move down the street, because my family and I are going to be safer with you in the neighborhood.
A number of years ago, I saw your countryman Peter Jennings run an anti-gun special back when “assault weapons” were making the news.
The urbane Peter was surprised when one that he had counted on actually approved of gun ownership.
I was amused when he remarked, “Couldn’t you have used a baseball bat or something?” Now there’s the enlightened and civilized way to handle someone trying to kill you or your family. Don’t put a few rounds through them like some kind of barbarian. Leap across your couch at 3 in the morning and turn their face into spaghetti sauce with a baseball bat.
Go Grandma!! By the time you’re finished you won’t be able to tell his sex or race. Thank God we’ve crawled out of the jungle!
Statists want Canada to be the world’s safest, most pacifist, and, in general, wussiest country.
Faint hearts don’t win fair maidens. Similarly, a perenially petrified, navel-gazing, wound-licking, self-loathing nation that aspires to be a wuss will produce a nation of wusses and get treated accordingly by its neighbours and fellow nations.
Methinks it all went to went to hell with seatbelt laws. Oh well, when Ted Morton becomes President of The Republic of Alberta (my new theory is Harper isn’t even trying to get re-elected – it’s all a Western Separatist conspiracy) then Western Civilization might stand a chance…