I previously posted about this issue here, but a column in today’s National Post by George Jonas brought it to mind once again. Read: Armed citizens should look to their own security.
The police carry guns for a reason: They’re great tools for law enforcement. Letting firearms become the monopoly of lawbreakers, far from enhancing public safety, is detrimental to it. Canada has gone out of its way to make criminals as invincible, and victims as vulnerable, as possible. This wasn’t the aim of gun control, of course, only the result.
Canada isn’t alone. Two years ago, terrorists in Mumbai, India, claimed some 500 casualties, dead and injured. Among the many questions raised by the outrage, there was a purely practical one: Why was the attack so successful? How could so few terrorists claim so many victims?
One obvious answer, as I wrote at the time, was firepower. Guns were illegal in the hands of both the terrorists and the victims. The victims obeyed the laws, the terrorists didn’t.
I think it’s worth revisiting the video titled, Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World. Thanks to an armed citizenry with the proper training, Switzerland has the ability to mobilize a very large army within as little as 24 to 48 hours should the need arise. But it was a trip to a Holocaust museum that convinced Marc Heim of the real value of guns (from the video):
“The key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself, and if you don’t have the tools to do that, then you are at the mercy of whoever wants to put you away. And the tools for that are guns.“
The following video (via Vlad Tepes) outlines the importance of the 2nd amendment to Americans and why Canadians could benefit from such constitutional guarantees. The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting; listen to Dr Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s testimony before Congress:
More from Jonas:
The police may think they license citizens to carry arms, but they don’t. It’s citizens who license the police. They license them to carry arms, to enforce the law, to investigate crime, to serve and protect. All power flows from the public to the authorities, not the other way around.
In free societies, that is.
If we want to maintain that balance of power and remain free, then it’s not only our right but also our responsibility to be able to defend ourselves. It’s not really so far-fetched to think we couldn’t someday become additional statistics to be added to those in Innocents Betrayed.
{ 8 comments }
No one says it quite like George. The left want to take away our right to self defense, you see it taught in the schools with their zero toleranace stupidity. I am hoping there are enough bright people in Canada to get rid of the left once and for all come the next election. Only a fucking idiot would vote for the gun registry.
Potty mouth points are the castiagation most media miss and which only occur in the more numerous common circles of our civilization. I don’t think they’re all idiots, just the ones who are branded “useful-idiots” would I reserve and give the copulatory description for.
The rest just don’t know any better. It is time to educate them all.
This is why good and honest citizens should ignore the registry. If you want a gun buy one for cash & keep your mouth shut about it.
Regardless of how much we disagree with the law, we need to follow it until the inevitable common sense will prevail to change it to what makes sense. Of course, if common sense demands the law be broken because the law can’t and won’t protect you, that’s a whole different argument, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near that situation anywhere in Canada (Caledonia aside).
But I gotta tell ya, I feel much better carrying a pistol on my hip in KAF.
To me the logic of firearms ownership goes something like this:
1) In a free society, government is legitimate if and only if it governs with the consent of the governed.
2) Consent can only be given if the withholding of consent is a real possibility.
3) If the state has a monopoly on violence and the tools thereof, consent cannot actually be withheld, and so cannot actually be given.
4) Such a government destroys freedom, and has descended into tyranny.
5) Therefore, to deny firearms to citizens is an act of tyranny, and is not acceptable in a free society.
After some tete a tete, Scott Ross’ site just wouldn’t accept this last comment on the ongoing discussion. Typically, he kept reciting the tired line from the biased police association who have financial ties to the software company for the LGR, and of the medical union folks (‘cause their automatically Left of center and supporters of anything leftist, of which the LGR is) who insist this saves lives. So, I give you the last portion of the un-post-able debate (for which I’m assuming is a site or software problem, not a censoring issue):
http://thescottross.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-many-votes-will-it-take-to-get-rid.html
Again, how does the registry get credit for this? Long gun suicides, which is where the biggest drop in deaths associated with firearms has occurred, hasn’t dropped the suicide rate at all, in fact hangings have increased by more than the fewer self inflicted gun deaths. If anything, it’s the increase in the mandatory firearms safety training that can attribute a drop in mishandling incidents where people get killed or harmed by rifles coupled with changing demographics.
Again, there’s no proof or correlation that the registry makes it safer. Again you’re just repeating like nice sheeple what the big kids are saying. Of course, the fact the software company responsible for the abysmal tracking method the LGR uses having donated 110 grand to the police chief’s association probably has no correlation between that group supporting it when the beat cops don’t.
You’re the one who’s insinuating they’re lying. I’m just saying they’re making stuff up and have no facts to back up their claims. Quoting from a comment at this article explains it best:
http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/long-gun-registry-fires-back/4603
“For example, the anti-gun lobby frequently states on air, in its press releases, and in talking points they send to their union buddies, that rates of homicide by long guns has been dropping since the mid nineties, when the registry was introduced. In fact, homicides by all guns and violence against women in general has been dropping since the seventies. Why? perhaps because the ’70s featured a demographic bulge of young people not present today, and it is young people who commit most violent crime.
The anti-gun crowd cherry picked the date of the start of the registry to make it appear that it has had some effect on reducing firearms violence. How can it? The registry contains only about half the long guns in Canada. And a significant number of entries it does have are incorrect.
Remarkably, since the introduction of the registry, handgun violence has increased, even though handguns have been registered since 1934. It seems that the criminal element can make more money importing illegal guns from the U.S. than running the risk of stealing them here.
Mr. Ling might want to go back to check his stats regarding robberies. Robberies with a weapon are not the same thing as robberies with a firearm. Also, he should go back to researching how many of the firearms used in assaults were actually registered. He will find that it was next to none or none at all. We have the criminal element at work here, not law-abiding firearms owners.
Finally, the stats Mr. Ling relies on seem to have come from the anti-gun crowd. This bunch only cares about violence against people if it involves firearms. They could not care less about stabbing, beating, vehicular manslaughter, poisonings, choking, and all the other way people find to hurt each other. Suicide by firearms may have dropped, but suicides in total have remained the same. A person determined to kill himself, herself, or someone else will always find a way.
Great Britain and Australia tried registration to lower gun violence. It didn’t work. They tried confiscation. It didn’t work. Registration and confiscation only affect the law-abiding. The armed criminal element simply laughed and went about their business. And gun crime stayed the same in Austrailia, and absolutely skyrocketed in Great Britain, which, according to the U.N. is now the most violent country in Europe, including The Balkans. Why not, now that armed British criminals now have a disarmed populace to push around.”
So, based that the disinformation provided by the supporters of the LGF is based on false assumptions, there can be no inductive reasoning. That is why I can’t stand my taxes being wasted on a false premise.
Other than repeating what medical and police associations are saying, try to reason on your own how the registry can actually save a life. You’ll probably just find that in every case, the only way to stop someone from pulling the trigger is to ban all guns in the first place, and that only leaves weapons in the hands of criminals.
If the leftard’s truly believe in their global warming bullshit, you would think private gun ownership would be on the top of their list. Who the hell do the idiots think is going to protect their tiny turnip patch as the earth melts and refugee’s flock to Canada, one of the last bastions of mankind. I know this much, if guns are registered not only does our government know where they are, but so does every criminal and terrorist regime in the world.
Thanks for this. It inspired me to write another post here: http://patrickoneil.blogspot.com/2010/09/defending-freedom.html.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }