The Freedom Pages

Pro-Freedom Quotes

2011-11-30T04:44:00.000-08:00

"Freedom is My Nationality"

I denounce the policy of protection as bondage - yea, bondage; and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage.

I am a subject of the British Crown, but whenever I have to choose between the interests of England and Canada it is manifest to me that the interests of my country are identical with those of the United States of America.

Let them look to the past, but let them also look to the future; let them look to the land of their ancestors, but let them look also to the land of their children.

Two races share today the soil of Canada. These people had not always been friends. But I hasten to say it. There is no longer any family here but the human family. It matters not the language people speak, or the altars at which they kneel.

I appeal now to any friend of liberty in this House; I appeal not only to the Liberals who sit beside me, but to any man who has a British heart in his breast, and I ask, when Subjects of her Majesty have been petitioning for years for their rights, and these rights have not only been ignored, but have been denied, and when these men take their lives in their hands and rebel, will any one in this House say that these men, when they got their rights, should not have saved their heads as well, and that criminals, if there were criminals in this rebellion, are not those who fought and bled and died, but the men who sit on these Treasury benches? Sir, rebellion is always an evil, it is always an offence against the positive law of a nation; it is not always a moral crime.

Sir Wilfred Laurier House of Commons

These things I believe:

That government should butt out.
That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away.
That individual freedom demands individual responsibility.
That government is not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil.
That the executive branch has grown too strong, the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid.
That political parties have become close to meaningless.
That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away.
That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquility.
That foreign trade should be fair rather than free.
That America should be wary of foreign entanglements.
That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
That guns do more than protect us from criminals; more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government.
That states are the bulwark of our freedom.
That states should have the right to secede from the Union.
That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows.

-- Lyn Nofziger
[Franklyn C. Nofziger] (1924-2006) American journalist, political consultant, author,
Press Secretary for President Reagan

REMEMBER!
The Constitution was written to protect THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT -
NOT to protect the government from the people!

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it."
- Christian Slater (In the movie "True Romance")

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
- Edmund Burke

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. "
- Samuel Adams

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."
- Samuel Adams

"Be more wary of the rights you are willing to give away, just because YOU are not using them -- the next person may be willing to give away YOUR rights."
- Dave Tomlinson, NFA

"When law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his or her sense of morality or losing his or her respect for the law"
- Frederick Bastiat

Trust is a two way street. If your government does not trust you, how can you trust your government?
- Bruce Montague

"If we expected self-reliance of family groups, if we expected hardiness and resilience and initiative on the part of individuals, and if we rewarded initiative instead of dependence on government, we would not only ameliorate many of the family-related social problems we see at present, but we would also reduce our vulnerability to terrorism. People who are hardy, resilient, and self reliant are a lot harder to terrorize."

- Bernard H. Levin, FBI National Academy Associate, November/December 2004, Volume 6, Number 6, Page 25.

"Anti-domestic violence and women's groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution. The current mainstream of feminism -- from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed -- is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals.

A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society. In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. ... The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power."

-- Wendy McElroy

Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom.

- F.A. Hayek

For in a Republic, who is "the country?" Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant - merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
- Mark Twain

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
- Robert Heinlein

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
- Thomas Jefferson

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.
- Ludwig von Mises

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."

- Ayn Rand

Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.
- Woodrow Wilson

"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, they don't alter the their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
- Doctor Who, The Face of Evil.

"The government has created a nation of paper criminals. People can be put in jail and lose civil rights and liberties through bureaucratic procedures.The only thing that is keeping you out of jail is government goodwill."
- Ayn Rand

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
- Edward Abbey

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
- H.L. Mencken

Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
- Aesop

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
- Dante

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good men to do nothing."
- unknown

"Better to die on your feet,... than to live on your knees"
- Zappata

"Live free or die."
- the caption on New Hampshire license plate

"If you have got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less, the more lethal your weapon."
- Dr. Arthur Kellerman New England Journal of Medicine

"A gun is 32 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to kill anybody."
- Dr. Preston Covey

"When the government fears the people ... we have democracy .... when the people fear the government ... we have tyranny.
- Thomas Jefferson

"Most of the time most people know the right thing to do ...its the doing of it that gives them trouble"
- Harry S. Truman

"LIBERTY is something you cannot have, unless you are willing to give it to others."
- Unknown

"Reckless, homicidal and suicidal people may own guns but gun ownership does not make anyone reckless, homicidal or suicidal."
- Dr. Preston Covey

"In Germany they first came for the communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
They came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade Unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

- -Pastor Martin Niemoller (Lutheran Pastor)

"A land where only the police (and military) have guns is called a Police State!"

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
- Albert Einstein

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,..."
- John Locke,2nd Treatise of Government,1690

Henry Bowman asks his professor "Prof, Arkes, I don't disagree with the basic principle, but it's not enough just to say, "Totaltarian regimes are wrong, so don't let the State enslave you". That's like saying, "Don't get sick". The important question is, when do you know it's going to become enslavement? When is the proper time to resist with force?"...... But when you're naked and seventy pounds below your healthy weight, it's too late. You have no chance. On the other hand, no one would support you if you started an armed rebellion because the government posts speed limits on open roads and arrests people for speeding. So when is it not too late, but also not too early?
-- Unintended Consequences by John Ross, Page 337

"It is true that I must run great risk; no gallant action was ever accomplished without danger."
- letter to the American Commissioners in Paris, 1778.

>From 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein;

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
- unknown

"In the Beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot"
- Mark Twain

"The best way to lose your freedoms is to stop exercising them."

"Guard with jealous attention the public LIBERTY. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, NOTHING will preserve it BUT downright FORCE. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... everyone who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry (in 3 Elliot at 45)

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two wolves attempting to have the sheep for dinner, and finding a well-informed and well-armed sheep."

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
- Thomas Paine

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanlysis

"A ruler is legitimate only in so far as he upholds the law. A ruler that violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed; his commands are mere force and Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals."
- John Locke

"Freedom consists in a people's being governed by laws made with their own consent."
- Swift: Drapier's Letters (1725).

In logic, to deny a necessary consequence is to deny the premise on which it rests -no matter what the motives of the denier. To deny the right to arms is to deny the right to live. The rest is just a matter of time, circumstance, and how much the leftists think they can get away with.
- Peter Landry

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken

A note on democracy: As a Supreme Court Justice recently said; "Five people in a life raft cannot, as an act of democracy, vote in favour of eating the sixth."

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill

"I don't trust a government I can't shoot back at"
- Claire Wolfe

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are inclined to obey the law.
- From Unintended Consequences by John Ross

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

Unregistered Firearms in the hands of honest citizens: Liberty's Teeth.
Strong Cryptographic tools in the hands of honest citizens: Liberty's Voice.

Visit pgp.com for more information.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly described by Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity". Hoplophobia, like homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own "forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence. This would be harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The sequela of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

He who goes unarmed in paradise, had better be sure that that is where he is.
- unknown

"No democracy that so distrusts the majority can long remain a democracy; it becomes a police state in the worst tradition of police states."
- Unknown

We are free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.
- William Faulkner

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master."
- George Washington

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

"...a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly."
- Jeffrey R. Snyder, "A Nation of Cowards"

"One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose, without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms".
- Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."
- Aristotle, "Politics"

I am willing to defend my property and liberty with the same force and enthusiasm as the ones that try to take it away!
- Bruce Montague.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.
- Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience", 1849

"Canadian politicians, unlike Americans or those who've actually lived under oppression, value peace higher than freedom. Peace-seekers need reminding that cattle on a well-run farm have the ideal peaceful existence: abundant food, warm accommodation, no threats - until the day they go to the slaughter house. That's not the sort of peace most of us value." Peace is Lloyd's game, a Nobel Prize is his aim
- PETER WORTHINGTON Toronto Sun January 12, 1999

"Experience hath shewn [sic] that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
- Thomes Jefferson

When asked "Is it worth risking my life to defend my property?", I ask "Is it worth risking your life to take away my property?"
- Bruce Montague.

"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
- Frederich Douglass

"A people who chose security over liberty will receive neither nor deserve either."
- Benjamin Franklin

"...when you ask 'What can one do?'- the answer is 'SPEAK' (provided you know what you are saying)....Speak on any scale open to you, large or small....Do not pass up a chance to express your views on important issues."
- Ayn Rand

"Today's citizen is obliged to find his freedom only in the narrow ruts pre-approved by his bureaucratic overlords. "Risk-free liberty" is the ideal of the Welfare State: citizens are permitted only liberties which have been declawed, defanged, neutered, certified and wrapped in benevolent restrictions."
- James Bovard

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force."
- Bruce Montague

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
- Tacitus

Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only after the last Gun is seized.
Only then will you find out that Money Cannot Be Eaten.
~Cree Prophecy~

" "Trusting contemporary governments means dividing humanity into two classes: those who can be trusted with power to run other people's lives, and those who cannot even be trusted to run their own lives. Modern Leviathans seek progress by giving some people the power to play God with other people's lives, property, and domestic tranquility."
- James Bovard

You don't have to go through life snarling, but it's knowing you're willing to fight that keeps the other dogs out of your dish.
- Unknown

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."
- Ayn Rand

People sometimes rationalize their greed by saying that it is all for the good of their children but this is nothing but an excuse they use to make their despicable actions appear respectable and praiseworthy.
- Democritus (460-370 BC)

"Sovereign immunity creates a two-tier society - those above the law and those below it, those whom the law fails to bind and those whom the law fails to protect. In some parts of this nation, laws against abusing pets are better enforced than are laws against government employees abusing citizens. Sovereign immunity presumes that the more evils that government officials are permitted to commit, the more good they will achieve. Sovereign immunity presumes that in order to protect people, government must be permitted to destroy them."
- James Bovard- freedom in chains

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)"
- Ayn Rand

The following appears to be the mindset of the anti-gun group:

"The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals."
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

- excerpted from a list by Michael Z. Williamson.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."
- Herbert Spencer

"FREEDOM" For those who Fought, Bled and Died For It
"FREEDOM" has a flavour the protected will never Know or Savor.
- Anonymous

"Our country is at an awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but it's too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

"Those of us who support the citizens' right to guns believe the vast majority of people make good choices. Anti-gunners have much less faith in others; perhaps even in themselves."
- unknown

Only crooked politicians fear armed citizens.
- unknown

Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the labourer that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
- Adam Smith

"Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions... Liberty and responsibility are inseparable."
- F.A. Hayek

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme court (1939-75)

"We don't have a gun control problem in Canada.
We have a government control problem in Ottawa".
- unknown

"Pity the poor, wretched timid soul who is too faint hearted to resist his oppressors. He sings the song of the damned:

"I can't fight back, I have too much to lose; I own too much property; I have worked too hard for what I have; they will put me out of business if I resist; I might go to jail; I have my family to think about."

Such poor miserable creatures are hiding their cowardice behind pretended family responsibility."

- Author Unknown - If you have that much to fight for, then you should be fighting.

"Security is the mother of danger and the grandmother of destruction"
- Thomas Fuller

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves...
- William Pitt, Speech to the house of Commons, 18 November, 1783

Misc. One-Liners

- An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
- A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
- Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
- Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
- If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
- Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
- If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
- Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
- 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
- Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
- Know guns, Know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
- You don't shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
- 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
- Assault is a behavior, not a device.
- Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
- If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
- Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens try to control them.
- You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
- When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
- The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

"You may not like guns. You may choose not to own one. That is your right.

You might not believe in God. That is your choice.

However, if someone breaks into your home at 3AM the first two things you are going to do are:

1) Call someone with a gun.
2)Pray they get there in time."

- A wise man.

"They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, For trying to change the system from within."
- Leonard Cohen

"We fight not for glory, nor for wealth, nor honour but only and alone for freedom which no good man surrenders but with his life."
- Robert the Bruce

If you can't trust a weapon to an individual, how can you trust it to a group of individuals?
- unknown

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people except by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
- Patrick Henry

In an October, 1995 speech to a woman's group, the registry's chief architect, Justice Minister Allan Rock proclaimed that "guns in the hands of criminals are not the problem - guns in our homes are the problem".

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights.
- H.L.Mencken

"Minds are like parachutes. They only function if they are open."
-author unknown

The sentiment that modern day ordinary Canadians do not need firearms for protection is pleasant but unrealistic. To discourage responsible deserving Canadians from possessing firearms for lawful self-defence and other legitimate purposes is to risk sacrificing them at the altar of political correctness.
- Alberta Provincial Court Judge Demetrick

"There is no crime more infamous than the violation of truth. It is apparent that men can be social beings no longer than they believe each other. When speech is employed only as the vehicle of falsehood, every man must disunite himself from others, inhabit his own cave and seek prey only for himself"
- Samuel Johnson, the great 18th-century moralist.

"Fear of death will not prevent dying, but it may prevent living"
- Anonymous

"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
- Lyndon B. Johnson

A self righteous Liberal with a cause, is more dangerous than a Hells Angel with an attitude.
- unknown

"I have great sympathy for the oppressed but I do not expect them to be morally superior to the oppressors. I merely expect them to be oppressed."
- Jerome Barkow, Anthropologist, Dalhousie University, 1989

"War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degrading moral value which believes that no freedom is worth fighting for is much worse. These men are never truly free unless their freedom is secured and maintained for them by better men."
- Anonymous US NCO, 101"t Airborne Div, 1991

"Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be preferable to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."
- C.S. Lewis

"Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way."
- Henry David Thoreau

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependence,
from dependence back again to bondage.

- Professor Alexander Tyler. 1874

No one ever said our freedoms would come cheap. Some we must be prepared to fight for, some we must be prepared to die for. Take freedom for granted once and it could be gone forever.
-1776

"Pity the poor opponents of the right to keep and bear arms! They must distrust just everybody except criminals and except the tyrant to whom they concede the armed monopoly of their protection."
- Pierre Lemieux [LIBERTY Magazine Nov. '97]

"I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"
- Voltaire

"When you disarm your subjects, however, you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you."
- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

If we don't all hang together, we will surely be hanged seperately!
- unknown.

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

- Calvin Coolidge, Past President of the United States.

You Need a Licence for.....

2011-11-19T01:09:00.000-08:00

The biggest argument used to justify the Firearms Control Program is listing things we need a licence for. For example "You need a licence to drive a car" "you have to register your car why not guns"

REALLY? Since when? I would point out that we in Canada live in a Common Law jurisdiction; as such we have the right to "travel the Queens Highways free from tax or levy". Oddly enough Common Law can be overridden by Statute. So each Province with the exception of Alberta has what is referred to as a "Highway Traffic Act" This is the enabling legislation that gives the Province the authority to issue drivers licences and register motor vehicles. What is not commonly known is by definition the highway traffic act only applies to those that make their living by the highways. That's right those who engage in "Commerce" via the roads should pay for them; that is what it was intended for. Traffic by legal definition means commerce or trade; the legal definition of a "driver" is one who is paid to do so like a bus driver or truck driver taxis driver. The Highway traffic Act merely overrides the Common Law where money is concerned.

When you obtain a "drivers licence" it is assumed that you intend to be paid; that the person sitting next to you is paying you to drive them. As a "driver" you are subject to the traffic act.
In truth there is not a single "LAW" requiring a licence nor the registry of your private property (your car). In fact you can buy any car your heart desires and never register it even a 13 year old with the money to do so (though I suspect contract law is in play and a 13 year old cannot contract without consent of a parent or guardian) This however does not give an individual to ignore other laws as in liability for accidents and injuries; leaving the scene of an accident is criminal.

It is because of the Highway Traffic Act that when you are pulled over you are asked for licence registration and proof of insurance in that order. The licence identifies you as a driver subject to the act; everything follows from the establishment of that fact. Before you test this though I would suggest you send your licence and registration back to the ministry of transportation with a notarized letter stating that you are surrendering to the crown your licence and registration that you are not engaged in commerce upon the highways and will not ever engage in such activities therefore you do not require a licence to do so any longer; keep a certified copy of this with you in your car. there is a proper form the letter should take which I will not go into here.

So to say that you need a licence for a car and register it; is a fallacious argument. No one needs a licence to travel in a car. However having a licence for a boat is another matter. The waters of Canada is not a Common Law jurisdiction it in fact falls under Admiralty Law which again is the sole domain of the federal government; in theory they could even forbid you from having a boat.

An Epic Fail, Our Firearms Control Program

2011-11-12T04:56:00.000-08:00

We will soon see the first step in dismantling of the Long Gun Registry. I among others are working towards the end of the firearms control program.

Bill C-68 which became our firearms control program was created out of hype and hysteria; furthermore it was an overt act of fraud when it was put through Parliament to ensure passage. It divided the Country along geographic and urban/rural lines. In short everyone took leave of their senses.

The net end result of the Firearms Control program; it is a criminal offence in Canada to possess a firearm bottom line; regardless whether you have owned them for years. Like all criminal offences in Canada the statute must provide a defence to the charge; it does so in the form of a licence; you must have a licence to possess firearms in Canada lest you face the full force of the statute. What is not commonly known though is that this defence provided must be available to the accused. Which presents an interesting proposition.

Say that I was a career criminal with a lengthy criminal record including assault. I am found in possession of a firearm; I would be undoubtedly be charged under section 91 and 92 of the criminal code of Canada. This would be the bare minimum the Crown usually uses a scatter gun approach to prosecution(pardon the pun) lay as many charges as possible in hopes of intimidating the accused into a plea bargain. Be that as it may however the main charge could be beaten and the net end result would be that section 91 and 92 become of no force or effect because they are unconstitutional (R. v. Morgentaler) provided that there was not a pre-existing court ordered prohibition for possession. I would wager that any charge where an authorization of some form that is dependant upon having a valid licence would be considered null and void. I believe it will be only a matter of time before a sharp ambitious criminal lawyer hits upon this and defends one of these thugs with this defence and wins.

I say thug only because no legitimate firearms owner would ever get a fair trial in Canada. This is why I haven't challenged the Criminal Code on this basis; though hypothetically I could obtain a black market prohibited firearm either handgun or other type of prohibited firearm like a sub machine gun and invite the authorities to arrest me. Not having the magic grandfathered status to have a licence for such I could not possibly ever have a valid licence for them; since the defence is a licence that I could not obtain the defence is "illusionary" the statute is invalid. Though I would not risk such a venture solely because the "good guys" don't play by the rules of fair play. I would find myself defending 50 charges stemming from the single offence. Given my activist activities on the internet this too would be used against me. This isn't paranoia I have been witness to such activities by our "good guys" I have also studied the case law over the past 4 years it never ends well for the challenger.

All this notwithstanding I put to you a question and an appeal to logic and reason. The cost of implementing the firearms control program has cost in excess of 2 billion dollars the true costs of the program will never be known because the Chretien Government made them Cabinet secrets; further more the cost of operating the program runs in the neighbourhood of 130 million dollars per year. It has stripped all firearms owners of their constitutional rights and safeguards simply because they complied with the program; whereas your average street thug has all his intact simply because he did not comply with the firearms program and is free to obtain whatever firearm their heart desires completely illegally and authorities would have to obtain a search warrant even to find their firearms. They can't get a search warrant for known drug houses why would they be able to get one for this? 2 million firearms owners out of 7 million complied; 7 million out of 21 million firearms were registered; this does not include criminals because criminals are not troubled by such things as obeying the Criminal Code.

So I put it to: The firearms act was intended to end all gun violence it has not. People still get shot whether the firearm is registered or the shooter has a licence or not. DEAD is DEAD this is one statistic that no one can argue with. The firearms Control Program has failed to end this; it has failed to save "one life" Therefore is it not time to scrap it and start from scratch?
Is it not time to really look at the real problems like organized gangs, rather than ordinary citizens who own firearms? Is it not time to put our tax dollars into effective community programs to eliminate criminality, rather than chasing honest people for paper crimes?

The Demise of the Firearms Registry

2011-11-12T03:52:00.000-08:00

At long last the bill to kill the long gun registry will soon be law. HIP HIP Huzzah.
It's only worth one cheer! The draconian Firearms Control Program will still be in full operation the day after C-19 becomes statutory. It will still be a criminal offence for ordinary Canadians to have lawful firearms without a licence. I would like at this time to assure all advocates of gun control that WE'RE NOT DONE YET!! We will not rest until this bad statute is finished, and become a memory.

As predicted by "we" "paranoid" "gun nuts" right on cue the Coalition For Gun Control have started their campaign of fear; they have started planting the idea that with the loss of the long gun registry it will mean "high powered" "deadly accurate up to a KM" sniper rifles will be de-registered.

Among the firearms community there is a divide those of us who figured out that if you can ban one type of firearm you can ban any type of firearm, and those who think that their firearm is safe just because they are hunters and none of their guns are a problem. We call these firearms owners "Fudds" after the Warner Brothers character Elmer Fudd. To say the least it is a very derogatory term. The Fudds have long held that their firearms are not the problem that they only hunt with them so on so forth; we have been telling the Fudds "yes you're right they won't come after your deer rifle, but they will come after your high powered sniper rifle". Well as if we had been watching a "future TV" it happens CCGC releases the fear campaign "High Powered Sniper Rifles Will Be De-registered." For the non firearms owner I will explain; any hunting rifle with a scope can be called a sniper rifle. Firearms manufacturers have spent thousands if not millions of dollars in research to develop hunting rifles that are more and more accurate for hunters, police and military. What is not commonly know by someone who has never shot a firearm is that the rifle is only one part of the equation; it might be of the perfect design and precision it still requires hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds of ammunition to become a consistent marksmen. It requires carefully controlled breathing an understanding of ballistic trajectory and the effects of wind to hit a target even at a hundred yards. No one can pick up a rifle and become an instant Hawkeye; even with the high tech rifles of today.

To put it succinctly it is pure Coalition for gun control propaganda.

It's Not A Law, The decline of rights and the rise of legalism

2011-06-17T06:41:00.000-07:00

Firstly the devil is always in the details. We as a society are generally quite ignorant when it comes to defining differences between laws and legislation.

We are a Common Law jurisdiction. The Common Law is a law of consensus it is agreed upon. It is a law based in custom and tradition, which was applied by judges who articulated them into law. In the words of Peter Landry it is the fair haired child at societies table.

Legislation is the brutish ugly bastard child at the table. It is the embodiment of what government truly is, which is 'force'. Legislation is what causes our society to slip into 'legalism' where anyone can become a criminal. It is the forced control over behaviour, or put another way it is ad hoc social engineering. Unfortunately it is necessary in our modern world to keep things moving and in certain cases keeps fairness in society.

The law is designed to protect freedom and rights. Whereas legislation is aimed at taking away these things. The law applies to everyone including the Queen, whereas legislation does not always apply to everyone equally exemptions can be written into it. A Law cannot be repealed since it was not enacted by a parliament, legislation can.
Although both ours and England's Parliaments can limit the Law with legislation unfortunately.

Statutes and Acts of Parliament are not law. They are only given the force of law. It might be a stretch but you could say it is a polite form of mob rule, since it was enacted by our elected representatives of which a majority of them approved the Act before Parliament. Though I would not say that is true in every case. A NGO can lobby the government claiming to represent a majority of people which in reality they only represent an minority of like minded people. Squeaky wheel meet oil.

We all have rights both constitutional and Common Law. When we claim a right it also imposes a duty on us. A right cannot exist without the accompanying duty. Blackstone says that we have the right to our life and our limbs, therefore it imposes the duty of protecting them. The law allows the keeping of such tools to this end. However in Canada we are denied these tools, The firearms act says self protection is not a valid reason for owning firearms.

My goal in this is to demonstrate that there is a difference between a law and a statute. If we begin to make this fine distinction between the two perhaps we can start regaining what the law allows and begin to regain our rights and our freedoms. As we have seen with the firearms act which was supposed to stop criminals and the misuse of firearms but instead protects criminals and began turning law abiding citizens into criminals.

Such Hypocrisy!

2010-09-14T21:41:00.000-07:00

You have to love the CBC and all the left lib media of Canada..They have been the House Orchestra for the liberal party of Canada for so long that they trip over themselves to look stupid.

Item- It seems one of Canada's pro firearms organizations has been conferring with SATAN. in laymen terms the NRA. About? Take a guess,,,if you guessed how to fight the gun control orgs and how to effectively lobby give yourself a cheroot..Imagine two pro firearms orgs comparing notes....Of course it has all the "we hate America " set aghast and are calling on the Ghost of Pierre T. to smite Stephan Harper...How dare they meddle in Canadian politics....

Of Course there is not mention of IANSA and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Controls long standing love affair..IANSA this org is just plain anti firearm and has been lobbying the U.N. to get everyone to sign a disarmament treaty..that is to say remove individual firearms ownership completely so that only police and military have guns...Just as an FYI they are well funded by the likes of George Soros..Another foreign National billionaire who happens to despise Capitalism, though it has been very kind to him.....but that is not his worse crime,

You see Mr Soros is/was a Jew. During WW II in order to survive he turned on his fellow Jews he turned them into the SS..worse still he feels no guilt about that...I would call him the most dangerous man on the planet..He is incredibly rich and has no conscience..

But hey instead of seeing things for what they are the lib left media will over look that. and keep howling at anyone that dare challenges their view

A Tale Of Two Registries

2010-09-11T23:01:00.002-07:00

The debate rages two sides collide and a battle of words in the media. Among them we see the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police(CAPC)we are seeing public servants stepping across a boundary that arguably they are not supposed to cross. Be that as it may it still does not change the fact that this said same organization tried to stop Canadian politicians from enacting The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms citing that it would emasculate policing in Canada. Twenty eight years later they don't appear to be emasculated.

This is not the theme of this article just a little preface, to the main topic. We have two registries in Canada(there are more but for this we will stick with these two)The one registry is the Sex Offender Registry (I'll refer to it as SR for short) and the Gun Registry. One keeps track of convicted sex offenders the other keeps track of inanimate objects.

The SR is related to the gun registry simply because that is what the CAPC wanted in order to get it they had to give their approval and support to the long gun registry which when the gun registry was proposed the CAPC did not support it. As we can see the game of politics is in play the old you wash my hands I'll wash yours. So they traded their opposition to support in order to get what they really wanted, The Sex Offender Registry.

The SR was developed very inexpensively largely because the criminal records system meshed neatly with it. It did not require a ground up construction like the Gun Registry.

Now for the bones of contention, Firstly in order to be placed on the sex offender registry all you need do is commit a sex offence be convicted and a judge order you placed in the registry in the sentence he/she imposes sounds simple but plea bargains and such or a little absent mind-ism on the part of the court and no such order issued. Result no entry of a sex offender in the registry. However we must also recognize that the sex offender is given the benefit of what is called "due process of law", firearms owners were given no such benefit and never ever committed a crime guilt simply by possession.

The sex offender registry did not apply to people that were convicted before the enactment of the law indeed no. However the gun registry applies to all gun owners past and present, that is to mean not just new gun owners. I've owned firearms for 30 years and I was required to register even though I have never aimed a firearm at another living soul ever nor used them to commit a crime ever. It appears a sex offender has more rights than I.

It gets even better, a sex offender who registered is only required to update information once a year, and if they move they have to let the authorities know. If they bother to at all it is only a 6 month max. stint in the pokey if they don't. Me on the other hand have to tell the CFC in advance of a move for restricted firearms and immediately after the move for non restricted firearms. If I fail to it's 2 years in prison again with out ever committing a crime against society strictly just for a regulatory offence.

I am tired of being treated worse than people who have harmed society. Being a firearms owner has become no different than being on parole from prison, though I have not ever done anything to warrant such treatment. You might say that maybe I ought to just give up and turn in or sell my guns. I can't do that, not and live with myself. It is a right to keep arms in Canada, I am not one to give up a right on anything and I will challenge people that do try to take away a right that I hold.

I have proof beyond reasonable doubt that we in Canada have the Constitutional Right to keep arms in our defence. It wasn't easy to find but it does exist. The English Bill of Rights 1689 forms part of our Constitution there for Parliament has not have the right to legislate against it, it is ultra vires of Parliament or beyond their power, though it has not ever slowed a politician down in the past plenty of laws are enacted which are unconstitutional, it takes the Court to strike them down though.

I have also heard/read time and time again the same tripe about we register this that and the other, however no one goes to prison if they don't register this that or the other, a firearms owner will if he fails to register, this is a marked difference.

A Tale Of Two

2010-09-11T23:01:00.001-07:00

Enough With The Rule Making Already

2010-08-12T03:51:00.000-07:00

At long last a fellow with letters behind his name has finally come and said what myself and many like minded have been saying for some time "We don't need a rule for everything". That is to say that we don't need to pass a law every time a tragedy strikes.

"If a skeptic was to wonder why Canadian authorities seem to respond to every tragedy by proposing intrusive new rules that can have impacts far beyond the problems they purport to be addressing, Frank Furedi has the answer: Canada has a cultural "addiction to rule-making."" Joseph Brean, National Post • Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010

I have had the good fortune in my life to not have tragedies where a loved one has died as a result of it.(knock on wood) I've had a good number of close calls and have known people who have. However do we always need a law passed every time someone does?

We have fallen pray to a new brand of "legalism" I say new because the first Emperor of China had used such methods for obtaining slave labour basically by passing law after law that essentially you could not breath without breaking a law. Of course it carried dire consequences back then. Unlike today where many "rules" are just legal pick pocketing by the the authorities.

Indeed we are a rule happy society. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million statutes. So in essence at some point in our daily lives we are breaking some rule or another,with little consequence since we don't have the authorities peeking in our windows and following us around..At least not yet anyway.

The single largest problem with this addiction is that it erodes personal liberty and freedom. It derogates our rights, not that our supreme court cares, they are on record saying that yes that rule does infringe your rights but it is a minor infringement. So go away and don't bother us. Nice of them to think so highly of rights and freedoms since it is their job to protect them. My opinion of that august body has fallen dramatically I now refer to them as Supreme Court Jesters.

Well since we have so many rules already could we not recycle them for other things? It would save printing costs and paper in our parliaments. What is more the pity though is these jokers in parliament like justifying their high salaries and want to show us they care beyond their fully indexed pensions. So they proposed legislation for this that and the other tragedy or crisis du jour. What is odd though is, I don't feel any safer for their efforts. In fact I feel poorer for it all because in the end I am less free.

Time To Stand And Be Counted

2010-07-20T04:15:00.000-07:00

My fellow Ontarians. This is a plea to each and everyone of us.

It is quite apparent that over the past months that the Government of Dalton McGuinty is out of control.

It has not been since the Government of William Davis has there been such disregard for the rights and freedoms of the people of Ontario.

The Government of Ontario has ignored the needs of the people and the economic health of our Province. We were the manufacturing engine of Canada. We were one of 3 Provinces that were economically sound and did not require equalization payments from the Government of Canada.

Today we are an over taxed and over regulated. We Cannot afford to wait till November of 2011 we need to act now.

I propose that we petition the Lt. Governor of Ontario The Honourable David C. Onley, O.Ont Stating that we the people have lost confidence in the Government in Ontario to Govern responsibly and wisely. Therefore We the People Demand that He present this petition to Premiere Dalton McGuinty and advise him that a writ will be delivered to dissolve the Parliament of Ontario and call an election immediately

This is unprecedented however it is completely lawful for we in Ontario we have no Constitution to say otherwise. Whereas the the English Bill of Rights 1689 is in force in Ontario, which clearly states our right to petition the Queen.

Therefore a petition has been drafted in both PDF format. It Can be down loaded from the following links or From my Website. No Confidence In The McGuinty Government

You can make a difference and you can stop an elected tyrant. Print the Petition out go out and get 20 signatures, that's not many nor all that hard to do. Ask yourself how many times any of us has said "oh well nothing we can do about it" here is our chance.

Mr McGuinty arrogantly said " That if the people don't like what I'm doing they can tell me in the polls." I don't think he would ever think that the polls would come charging toward him.

Of Lawful Protest

2010-06-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

With the recent "riot" at the G20 conference in Toronto, and Billy Blair snivelling to another snivelling politician for greater police powers while the summit is in progress to arrest anyone who does not identify themselves to the corporate policy enforcers within 5 metres of the security zone. I feel the time is ripe to let the cat out of the bag.

I have bad news everyone, this is the system you all voted for and this is the system you all support. So stop whining.

The Toronto Star has gone on ad nauseium about Mr McGuinty granting these extra powers to the police behind closed doors but are ardent supporters of gun control. how is topic related? Simply the right to protest and the right to keep arms are both lawful and synonymous with freedom.

In my own humble opinion it is an utter waste of time protesting peacefully or otherwise. I can't think of a single thing protesting has ever accomplished. It also proves that many of these "hooligans" have far too much time on their hands and need to be engaged in something productive. While they might claim they are raising awareness of the plight of others at the hands of these organized criminals (Governments) what they are truly doing is raising the awareness of people that they are violent and unprincipled. What they are saying is "Listen to us or we will wreck the place"

At Common Law we are free to do pretty much what ever we wish to do. The LAW only comes into play when the public peace is breached, when another human being is harmed, or when their property is damaged. These are serious crimes at Common Law (which is the only true LAW) The quote unquote "protesters" have broken several of these canons of LAW in an attempt to make the police and the pooh bahs look bad. Was it worth it?

If 15 000 firearms owners marching on Parliament Hill could not get Bill C-68 repealed how would a few thousand self entitled individuals change anyones minds? The short answer is they won't. These G20 blokes are used to protests even expect them, and fringe groups pushing their agendas at public expense will not make a difference.

How do you get a Government's attention? Well easy you rescind your consent to be governed. Trust me though,that is the only easy part of it and realize that you will be literally be "jumping the ship of state". You will need to make sure there is dry land under your feet when you land. We live presently on board a ship metaphorically speaking, that is to say we live under Admiralty Law which is the law of the sea. To live under the law of the land (which is Common Law) you have to declare your intent, your understanding, and declare your claim of right. To do this you will need a notary or a solicitor swear all this out in an affidavit which will then be sent to the respective pooh bahs and if they do not respond within the allotted time then it is perfected and a default judgment must be entered into the public record. Shazzam you have just made LAW.

A handful of people doing this will not raise an eyebrow, when thousands if not millions start doing this then they will take notice and true meaningful change will begin to take place. Why? because you will have stated why you are opting out and secondly you will be able to stop paying taxes legally(but that is a complicated subject, it takes time and must be done carefully)

This is the truest form of lawful protest. however you must be prepared to go all the way. I will publish a Letter of Intent and Understanding and A Claim of Right to demonstrate what I am talking about here. Mine is seven pages long so I think it precludes it being published in full here.

What also needs to be understood that you will be waiving benefits of this Free and Democratic society. Furthermore you also need to understand that the benefits I mention are not all good benefits. Remember the speeding ticket you got? surprisingly that is considered a benefit same with the parking ticket.

As The Panic Sinks In,

2010-05-03T20:52:00.000-07:00

It has been quite a while since I last posted anything on the topic of firearms. I would like to take the opportunity to debunk and set some records straight.

Why do firearms owners feel they shouldn't have to register their firearms, we register cars and dogs and land etc. etc. etc.?

What is the big bone of contention? simply put, Indeed we register a great many things. However you don't get sent to prison if you don't register your car and the plethora things you register. Also believe it or not there is not a single law that requires anyone to register those things.

Registering firearms make firearms accountable for their guns

That statement begs the question "Accountable for what?" We hold criminals accountable either by placing them on probation, parole or locking them up. Now this is where the debate becomes white hot for me. I am not a criminal and I refuse to be treated like one. Under Roman Civil Code which made its way into our system of law viz inheriting English Law etc. Criminals were given licences to stay out of prison provided they behaved themselves.

Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of CANADA made every firearms owner in CANADA a criminal, an outlaw without ever committing a crime nor having ever been before a court. One stroke of the Governor Generals pen 7 million people were made criminals. Now how do we manage to stay our of prison ,,,,We had to get a Licence. (which by the way only 2 million of us did,,,5 million of us said no)

There are about 8% of the 2 million that don't have a problem with that. They are of the opinion they will never need to worry. But,Think about it, How would you feel if you were all of a sudden declared a criminal?

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry and say it is an important tool in preventing crime

A year ago CPAC was outed. Their support can be bought. The ethics advisor even resigned because of their "funding practises". They are a LOBBY GROUP. accountable to nobody, especially the public..

Lets use a bit of common sense for a minute. Does the registering of cars prevent drunk driving? If you answer yes? I just be polite and say you are not being honest.
seriously it can't do that. So how can a registry firearms prevent a misuse? It can't either.

As an FYI we in Canada have not been required to have licence nor register our rifles and shot guns for 135 years. In the 8 years that we have been required to have a licence and register our firearms we have seen a rise in criminal use of firearms. Why? Simply GUN CONTROL is a farce. But don't take my word for it here is an excerpt from an article published "Canadian Gun Control. (Gun Rights)." by Don B. Kates..

Over several decades Canadian gun controls have been a subject of study by criminologist Philip Stenning who is a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. His views should be of particular interest for he is not a gun owner and has scant liking for guns and their ownership. Nevertheless he is anti-gun control because he has concluded that it "just does not work." His findings severely undermine gun control proposals made in either the U.S. or Canada.

Prof. Stenning's first finding is that the evidence does not support the anti-gun faith that more guns will cause more crime or that fewer will result in reducing crime. That faith is refuted by the lack of correlation--indeed, the often NEGATIVE correlation--between how many guns there are in any particular area and how much gun misuse there is in that area. As Professor Stenning wrote in Gun Control - A Critique of Current Policy 15 POLICY OPTIONS 13 (1994): "The highest concentrations of firearms in Canada are in rural communities. Data from the most recent study on this matter... [1991] indicate that approximately 60 percent of household firearms in Canada are in non-urban households. Yet most firearms abuses occur in urban areas; in recent years, for instance, urban areas have accounted for about 65 percent of firearms homicides. While almost every household in remote Aboriginal [Indian] communities contains at least one firearm (and typically more), the proportion of homicides in these communities committed with firearms is no higher than the proportion in other rural and urban non-Aboriginal communities."

Genuine fear is settling in among Gun Control advocates, the level of deception they are stooping too is both amazing and frightening at the same time. It is frightening because never in Canadian history has so much hysteria been mobilized at one time. All aimed at people who really don't care one way or another about the issue, nor do they understand what they are being asked to support. I don't doubt that if you did ask the average Canadian if they support gun control the answer would be yes. However this support dwindles quickly when the costs start accumulating, when they realize that, it is money being spent that could be used better else where.

It is amazing in the sense these people are lying in the day and age of such things as the world wide web, the freedom of information act and statistics are readily available to the public. All because they benefit from the status quo.

I'll put it to you this way think hard now, in 143 years of CANADA how many people have lost their sanity and gone off on shooting sprees. Not many less than 10 by my count 7, in fact the worst mass murder in Canadian history didn't even involve a gun. Nope, just plain old gasoline. For the one is too many set I ask you this, If one is too many then are you prepared to make everyone that uses gasoline a criminal?

Though the question that remains unanswered is simply this. If Gun Control is such a positive thing and genuine benefit to society, Why do its supporters feel the need to lie about it?

Ann Comes to Ottawa...Almost

2010-03-26T14:28:00.000-07:00

It became a non event, and a banner day for Canada.

Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.

Canadian Human Rights Act

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.

Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work

NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link

It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.

From the elder Bill of Rights

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

(c) freedom of religion;

(d) freedom of speech;

(e) freedom of assembly and association; and

(f) freedom of the press.

From the Charter

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?

Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....

As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....

In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons

Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world

Legal System 1 Rights 0

2010-03-12T20:13:00.000-08:00

Lets be perfectly clear. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. That said, under such a system truth, rights, the long established common law mean nothing. The only ones safe from such a system are the common criminals themselves. Which is apparent with our current catch and release method of dealing with violent people. A ten year sentence for manslaughter can be served in less than 3 years with double and triple credit for time served awaiting trial and sentence.

This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.

If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).

I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?

If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.

Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.

Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.

The Regressive Progressive

2009-12-20T18:57:00.000-08:00

Call me strange but I happen to be a person that sees progress as having more than what you started with. Before the wheel we got every where by shank's mare (on your own feet) The wheel meant we could now ride every where or at least not have to carry everything on our backs. Domestication of animals meant we had beast power instead of man power.

As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).

We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.

For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.

Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.

The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.

Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.

It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.

It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.

Copenhagen And The Green Shirts

2009-12-18T04:33:00.000-08:00

Carbon, public enemy number one today? I find it had to believe that the element every living thing is dependent upon is going to set the world on fire. At least metaphorically speaking. Indeed it has been said that this element when used as fuel becomes the evil carbon dioxide gas, a greenhouse gas...But wait a minute 97% of the CO2 is from natural sources including every living creature when it exhales. The remaining 3% comes from human activities.

The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.

There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.

Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?

Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.

We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.

Dec 6 L'Ecole Polytechnique, emotional rhetoric to a political end

2009-12-06T05:35:00.000-08:00

Today Dec 6th marks the anniversary of the shooting at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. My thoughts are with the survivors and families of the victims.

I would like to take some time to speak of "EMOTION" This event generates emotions, however it was emotion that created the tragedy to begin with. Indeed Gamil Gharbi(aka Marc Lepine) was a seriously emotionally disturbed young man, with a hatred of feminists. He took this hatred to its ultimate conclusion and committed the heinous act he did. In the end he took his own life leaving no one to be culpable for the crime, no one to stand trial and be held responsible.

I believe this created a vacuum in the psyche of the nation, and nature abhors a vacuum. To replace Gharbi we turned to the only tangible thing left behind, his gun. Guns became the focus of our outrage, emotion created a storm. The rational was if there were no guns in private hands this would not happen again. If only there had been laws in place controlling firearms this would not have happened.

There is a large problem with this, emotions are irrational, emotions get people into trouble more often than not. Spur of the moment emotional responses always have dire consequence. It causes people to do things that in sober rational second thought to say things like "I wish I hadn't done that" or "I should of thought before I acted.".

In this instance in light of the events of L'Ecole Polytechnique cause the then Government of Kim Campbell to amend existing law. Only one act of these amendments made any rational sense, the requirement for safety training. The rest were mere feel good accomplish nothing regulations. Enter Wendy Cukier and the Coalitions for Gun Control. They were behind the scenes lobbying, their ideas were given fertile ground with the emerging reorganized Liberal Party under Jean Chretien.

The opportunity not being lost on him campaigned on a strong gun control platform. Using L'Ecole Polytechnique to their advantage and the public disgust in the Mulroney Governance of the Country. This was enough to cause women and feminist not to vote for and elect Canada's first woman Prime Minister.

Moving on to ethics and morality. In a nutshell is the difference between right and wrong and knowing it. In a rational objective way using reason and logic. Is it right to punish someone who has committed no crime or done no wrong? .. Is it right to push your beliefs on others? ... Is it right to continually support something that you know has not solved the problem but if you admit you are wrong you will look bad? tougher question eh? Is is right to lie in order to support this, is it right to lie to others? If you have answered "Yes" to any of those questions, it is a safe bet you slither rather than walk upright.

It is immoral to punish people that have done no wrong, it is equally immoral to blame them for something they did not do or had anything to do with. It is immoral to cast a wide disparaging opinion on a community because you disagree with their lawful past times and pursuits. It is most immoral to lie to people who have put their trust in you in order to save face.

That is pretty much what the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien and CFGC did when they enacted the Firearms Act(c-68). In fact the Liberals knew it was their 1977 law that made sure no one could stop Gharbi. They(the Liberal Party) and the CFGC continue to lie about it. You would have to be lying to say that a mere law can stop an insane act. Worse still the law they enacted guaranteed it would happen again..Another emotionally disturbed fellow did attempt to repeat L'Ecole Polytechnique.

Kimveer Gill went to Dawson College he had a licence and he had registered firearms. He then broke every regulation in the firearms act and opened fire on students there. What stopped the repeat of Polytechnique was 2 ARMED Police officers who just happen to be there. That is correct it requires a gun to stop a gunman. Dawson College is positive proof of the failure of Gun Control. I notice it is rarely mentioned..

2012 Count Down to Doomsday

2009-11-15T06:11:00.000-08:00

I have resisted writing about this for some time, now I am giving into it with the release of the blockbuster Movie 2012. What is the fascination with the end of the world anyway? It is nothing new, people have been telling us the end is nigh for some time. Y2K was supposed to be the year the last trip round the doomsday clock. Now the date from the Mayan calendar is the new doomsday. Every prophet or prophecy I have encountered over the years never has any good news. Is it a case of collective guilt and collective bitterness between the haves and the have nots of the world? A “We don’t deserve our good fortune.” Coalescing with “You SOBs will get yours” perfect storm? I don’t know really but we seem to get preoccupied by doom every now and again.

According to the latest round the doomsday prophets the clock is set for December 21, 2012. This date is taken from the Mayans, a stone age civilization of pre-Columbian North America. The Maya were advanced for their time they developed a system of mathematics and conceived of numbers less than zero. However they built everything out of stone and obsidian they were not the most technologically advanced. They believed in a Pantheon of Gods which resembled animals natural to their environment and fed these gods with an endless line of human sacrifice. Not exactly a civilization I would hang any predictions on.

According to those who have studied the Maya they did not predict the end of the world. The mystery if you will is around the question of why the calendar ends when it does. If they were the great predictors as they are made out to be why didn’t it end when their civilization ended in 900 ce. Guess they didn’t see it coming.

They were the top tribe in the area if you will, if you were Mayan you were tops. Not likely to be the sacrifice. Perhaps it was their arrogance that produced a calendar that went so far into the future, more years than anyone could count was impressive. Perhaps being the regions master race they like our modern Nazis types(the thousand year Reich) were showing their superiority by stating that they would be around forever. In any case I haven’t met any ancient Mayans to ask them.

The truth is the world has ended thousands of times in our recorded and unrecorded history. We modern types seem to view the world as being the whole planet since we have knowledge of its totality. However many ancients only had concept of the world as what existed in the area that they could walk. What existed beyond that was terra incognita and was left to the imagination of what lay beyond that. A devastating earth quake or volcano could end the world they knew. So why would it be any different for the Maya.

So I will be bold and make a prediction, December 21^st 2012 will come and go like every other 21^st of December. Maybe with a little more fan fare than others. We also need to realize that a calendar running out is not cause for doom it just means its creators were not around to update it.

Enough Rhetoric, Hyperbole and Hubris

2009-11-12T04:03:00.000-08:00

I am somewhat dismayed by the mainstream press, I have seen a great deal of ink decrying the end of the Long Gun Registry with the usual tired spin. All presented as gospel with little basis in truth or fact. Paid columnist doing their jobs of pontificating both theirs and that of editorial board’s views of the gun registry. I can say with a degree of confidence that none own firearms and have had no dealings with the firearms bureaucracy. Rarely is there balance shown, with the usual suspects being held up as experts on the topic. More is the pity, when democracy is exercised in the House of Commons and the outcome is not to their liking it is construed as a cheap political trick. On the other hand when a bill is rammed through a majority House, Senate and Committees unchanged that’s democracy in action? I am of the firm belief that all Bills in the House of Commons should be private members Bills (excepting the Budget), debated and voted on freely. That way laws would be enacted based on their utility and merit rather than partisan party lines.

Our rebuttals are confined to the limited number of words that can be published in a letter to the editor. With no guarantee the entire letter will be published as is or published at all. Indeed we are kept a vocal minority.

To address this in a rational fashion we need to put a wee bit of background into the public’s view. In Canada for over a hundred years no citizen has had to have either a licence nor register a shotgun nor a rifle. Up until 1977 anyone could walk into a gun shop pick out a rifle or shotgun pay for it and leave. The sale was recorded at the shop that was the end of it. After 1977 a firearms acquisition certificate (FAC) was required in order to purchase a rifle or shotgun. This was not a licence part of getting an FAC was a criminal background check however the long guns already owned by an individual were still legal. AG Kim Campbell enacted the requirement of a safety course to obtain a FAC. Bill C-68 changed all that, as of 1995 it was illegal to own any firearm, unless you were the holder of a licence and all firearms in your possession were registered. Imagine a Government granting a licence to break the law? A tad absurd if you ask me.

What is the big deal? We register vehicles and licence their drivers. This is both true and false, the more correct way of putting it would be, we licence drivers and register vehicles for use on public roads. No requirement of either is required if the driver and vehicle do not leave private property. Nor is it a criminal offence if you drive without a licence or registered said vehicle. Nor does the emergency response team from your local constabulary kick in your door in the wee smalls of the morning to seize all your vehicles and lay criminal charges either. The MTOs are also very efficient at sending out renewal papers and there are numerous locations to visit to renew your licence and vehicle registrations. For firearms owners there is only one method via Canada Post. So it is only true up to the point that they are licences and registrations after that the similarity ends. I would also add that an individual may own any vehicle they wish to, no restrictions are placed on the type of vehicle nor does one receive a visit from law enforcement to inspect said vehicles.

It is a valuable tool. I might just be too simple to understand but I have always been of the opinion that a tool actually achieves something. Whether that is a shovel to dig a hole or a DNA profile to prove the presence of a person at a crime scene or to exclude them. It is said that the registry connects an individual to a firearm and holds them accountable. Of course this is only true if a person is foolish enough to commit a crime with a registered firearm and hang on to it. Even so it is irrelevant because in law it makes little difference if a person is shot with a registered firearm or an unregistered firearm. For that matter even if it is a borrowed registered firearm. The registry is also inaccurate so inaccurate that it cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. If a patrol officer responding to a call queries the registry and finds no guns at the location should he believe that and let his guard down? Police in the United States do not have the luxury of universal registry of firearms yet they seem to function quite effectively. In the UK where registration is mandatory and quite onerous, so much so that many Britains have in fact turned in their firearms rather than go through the red tape to keep them. Further to that handguns have banned since 1998, have had to start arming their police because crimes involving firearms has increased not declined as one would think. The UK is the most violent country in the EU with 2034 violent crimes per population of 100 000. We in Canada have nothing to be smug about we ranked in at #6 on that survey. Whereas our gun toting neighbours to the south who are often held up as the example of why guns are evil didn’t even make the top ten in that survey. We were promised by Mr Alan Rock that crime would plummet with the registry in place. So where is this efficacy?

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are strong supporters of the registry. In a Globe and Mail article last April it was reported that their ethics officer resigned over their associations practice of receiving corporate donations Taser International was a large contributor, low and behold the use of their product received their ringing endorsement for use in law enforcement despite the fatalities directly attributed to their use. Oddly enough CGI group another large contributor to the association which coincidently are also contractors for the registry, now receive a ringing endorsement viz their support of the registry. This moves them out of the realm of professional organization to political lobby. It could be also said that a Police Chief is long removed from a patrol car and out of touch with his frontline officers. Further the hiring of a Chief is done by the local politicians, the renewal of one’s contract could be tied more to politics than performance.
It prevents gun crime, Again I must be too simple because I am not seeing the Emperor’s new clothes on this. How does having a piece of paper (the registration slip) stop a crime? The bad guys could steal a registered rifle, file the serial number off and the registry is defeated. In theory anyone could commit a crime today and report their firearm stolen yesterday. Again where is the rational connection to prevention? Kimveer Gil used registered firearms at the Dawson College shooting, the only thing the registry did was confirm they were his. That is cold comfort for his victim’s family. Gamil Gharbi of the Polytechnique shooting, if his rifle had been registered would the registration slip have sounded an alarm alerting people to his presence? Would it have sprung to life and barred him from leaving his home that day? No it could not. So where is its utility?

If it saves one life is it not worth the money spent? I don’t think that this is the correct question. I think the question is, has it saved one life? With the true costs hidden in Cabinet secrecy we will never know its true costs. Though 2 billion dollars is the figure often cited. Another fair question becomes how many more lives could have been saved by allocating those funds elsewhere? Two billion dollars could have funded many programs with direct and tangible results in crime reduction. Youth recovery programs come to mind. It has been cited that it costs $24 000 per youth to recover them from gangs, which translates out to 83 000 lives saved from a violent life and possible death. Every shelter for women in the country could have been funded for 15 years. Though perhaps the money would be better spent trying to eliminate the need for such shelters. How about an MRI in every hospital? Thousands of lives could be saved with that annually. Thus far to date the money spent on the registry remains squandered resources with 0 results.

For the Greater Good...

2009-10-07T12:14:00.000-07:00

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson

Justice Minister Nichols (CPC) Is currently kicking around a piece of legislation that if enacted would give Police unprecedented powers. Why is are they unprecedented? Chiefly because this legislation would allow police to pull over any car and its occupants for absolutely no reason to administer a breathalyzer.

This is a practise that is currently taking place in a few European jurisdictions, the Netherlands to name one. I cannot speak for or to the laws of European countries as I am unfamiliar with them, nay ignorant of them. However I am very familiar with the laws of Canada. To be perfectly honest I really don't care what they are doing in Europe, Europe was a place not too long ago that rounded people up at the behest of a certain occupier of their countries. A place where identity cards had to be carried at all times and presented when commanded.

I have grown up with a belief that in Europe the powers that be were omnipotent and people do as they are told. Right or wrong that is my impression of Europe. Where there is a trust in their legislators and a belief in "It's all for our own good". I have this belief largely because of WW II and that democracy is a relatively new idea in many European Countries. Call it a bit of English snobbery where democracy is not so new an idea and there is a long tradition of Liberty.

In Countries where Roman Law or Civil Code are the basis of their legal tradition view things differently than Countries with a Common Law tradition. But enough said of this. As I have said I only care about Canadian Law which as it so happens is founded upon the Common Law tradition except in Quebec which the Civil Code is still used in a BiJural system.

We in Canada have the written guarantee of certain rights. Sadly many of my fellow Canadians take their freedom and their rights for granted, more is the pity many can't even name 3 rights they hold under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). I am of the opinion some days that my fellow countrymen place little value upon their rights and will allow their Government to pass legislation that slices away at their rights and in the end their freedoms.

For the "Greater Good" or for "Public Safety" seem to be acceptable reasons for "waiving" your civil rights. Many of us who go on about rights and speak of the "thin end of the edge" or the "slippery slope", always sound annoying, preachy, and worst of all BORING. Well my fellow citizens welcome to the bottom of the slippery slope.

This law if enacted will give every police officer the right to pull us over when ever they feel like it, demand that we blow into a tube whether we have had a drink or not. They do not require probable cause anymore.

Of course many people are saying "So? They are looking for drivers who have been drinking, I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.". Thats fair, I hope their cough syrup is alcohol free or their mouth wash is. With the lower thresholds that some Provincial Governments have introduced you may blow a false positive. Now we are no longer talking about a minor inconvenience. You will then be commanded to accompany them to the station for the proper test conducted by the certified technician, or possibly a court ordered blood test. (of course they will give you a lift in the back of their car)

Did I mention that while all of this was happening you were technically under arrest? Indeed you were, in fact arbitrarily detained. Which by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not supposed to happen. Ah heck, it isn't supposed to happen in a free and democratic society with or without a charter of rights.

A small part of me wishes this law to pass, not because I think it is right, heck no,, This small part me is the "wise acre" that wants to say I told you so, when the knock comes at your door one day and its the local constabulary wanting to come in and look around and make sure no laws are being broken. You can't protest because you have already waived your rights, you waived them long ago. With each passage of a law that took away a slice of your rights. When you just nodded in silent agreement with every law that was enacted for the "public good". I hope we all wake up sooner than later for it will be too late if our democracy will have gave way to a police state.

The Republic of Canada

2009-09-21T05:59:00.000-07:00

What an idea!. Canada becoming a Republic, while I can appreciate and understand why some would be hesitant about becoming a republic I believe it is an idea that has merit.

I am from a Crown Loyalist Family, that is to say my ancestors left the newly formed Republic of The United States of America because we had to. We fought against the revolution, thus we wore out our welcome. I am of the opinion that my ancestors felt that it was an act of treason to raise arms against the King. We settled in Upper Canada and have lived there ever since. As such I think I am more than qualified to speak on this topic.

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary democracy. This all good but there are problems within this Country that cannot be addressed under the current state of affairs.

The first and largest problem is; we are a democracy. Which is the rule of the majority, therefore the minority always suffers. So it's no great shakes being in the minority, however if you happen to be from the most populous region of Canada you get to dictate to everyone else. Ontario is the most populous Province in Canada with 12 000 000 souls and counting, Quebec is second. In years gone by before the Bloq Quebecoise Quebec was a key Province to carry for our National Parties therefore appeasing Quebec was job one. Many of our Prime Ministers were from La Belle Province. Since the formation of the Bloq, the voters of Quebec have in essence thrown their vote away by electing Bloq party members to Parliament. I say thrown away because the BQ will never form the Government.

Which leaves Ontario and its 106 seats in the House of Commons which when compared to the rest of Canada's 107 seats (excepting Quebec and the Territories) it requires 8 provinces to surpass Ontario's representation in Government. While it might be representative democracy it is hardly fair. But then when has democracy been about fairness? This in essence gives one province the ability to drive the national agenda. It would require 1 party to sweep all of Ontario and 2 more in other regions to run the slate. Conversely it would require one party to sweep every other region in Canada to negate Ontario.

While overly simplistic and not our present reality it is not outside the realm of possibility. Strange things happen in Politics all the time.

There is also the undemocratic side of our system. Constitutionally speaking Parliament is OMNIPOTENT. Nothing stands in the way of a majority Government. We do not have the checks and balances our neighbour to the south has built into their system. In fact we actually have Parliaments supremacy built into ours.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we need to reform our Constitution and make Canada a Republic. While it's nice to be able to have the appendage "Royal" attached to our institutions the world won't come to an end if over the next 20 odd years became entirely severed from the Crown.

As it is today we have an unelected head of State, The Queen and her representative the Governor General. Which the latter is appointed. Our Prime Minister is merely the leader of the Party that got enough seats to form the Government. However the Prime Minister is actually more powerful than the President of the United States. He does wield supreme executive power but was not ever directly elected.

But the single greatest argument for a republic is The authority of the Government comes from the PEOPLE. As it stands today we in Canada only elect our dictators who's authority is derived from The Crown of England. The English Parliament enacted the Statute the created the super colony of Canada in 1867. In 1982 the final act of the English Parliament was to grant our Parliament its autonomy and to enable Parliament to amend the Constitution. We as Canadians gained nothing and we still pay for the privilege of have the "Royal" appendage.

It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign onto this. Why would they nothing changed for them. However by them not signing the Constitution, they made it de facto law not de jure.

We need now more than ever to unite our Country under a republic with reforms that will equalize the electorate stabilize and moot Quebec separatist. and bring our Western Provinces in out of the Cold.

The State of Mind

2009-07-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

I have been away from this blog for a while..I've been ear deep in legal research. I have been pouring over volumes of Supreme Court judgements. Two recent decisions have me scratching my head. Two Identical cases, in that two people minding their own business when they are detained for very little reason. The one fellow was driving his car the speed limit, it appears obeying the law is suspicious in this day and age. The other fellow was walking down the street. The first fellow had his car searched unwarrantably the police found 6 million in cocaine in the back. The other fellow was not searched but asked what he was doing and if he had anything he shouldn't, to which he did answer yes a bag of weed and a firearm. His foolishness and the firearm aside, how does walking down the street become suspicious behaviour warranting the police to confront you? While I am loath to use the race card it appears just being black enough. These issues of what they possessed is not the issue, it was how they were dealt with.

The SCC deemed that the cocaine was to be excluded as evidence, as it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Net result Crown's case collapses and the guy skates on the charges. Our other fellow is not given the same interpretation of the Charter and the firearm is admitted as evidence. He goes to jail. The circumstances in my view are neither here nor there, it is the application of our supreme law that is at issue. One fellow's abrogation of his rights was deemed serious and the other's was considered minor. Both men are criminals either way you put it but each was treated differently. It seems 6 million dollars worth of misery is less of a crime than having a gun. While many would agree that this decision of our High Court is a,ok, I would and will argue that any infringement of an individuals rights is serious and always brings the administration of Justice into disrepute.

We must consider the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is supposed to be a limit on the state including the police. In its capacity as the supreme law of the land it is supposed to level the playing field. Consider that the Crown has a very deep pockets it can hire all kinds of lawyers to prosecute, it can hire and use experts in given fields to testify on their behalf. They have the ability to take your freedom away.

What does an ordinary person have? for the most part only what he has in his bank account, for many of us that is a bleak prospect. So our Charter puts limits and rules on the state as to how they may conduct themselves. Evidence obtained through breaking the Supreme Law of the Land is still breaking the law, the police are supposed to be the good guys and always obey the law. In breaking the law by illegally detaining a person can only ever bring the course of justice into disrepute.

The United States has some very sticky laws concerning this, with sanctions against those who violate a persons civil rights. Evidence obtained by breaking the law is forbidden yet they manage to put bad guys away. The Police there have found how to work within the law. Why do our Police require such remedial measures?

Of course when considering this one is tempted to look at worse case scenario. The "What if" scenario. What if there was a body in the trunk of a car? Unfortunately that is the one downside of the rules. The question then arises what if you have a bunch of kinky sex toys in your trunk? Would you want a cop discovering them? Is your personal dignity not worth something to you? The concept is Innocence, we are all innocent until proven otherwise. Whether we are walking down the street or driving cross country in a rented car we are not to be impeded by anyone working for the state. If you think this was an isolated incident Police detained a letter carrier who was filling in for the regular postman on a route, they didn't take him at his word either, turned out he was just what he said he was. Oh did I mention he was black as well. Just because the police are of the opinion that your behaviour is suspicious is not probable cause to stop someone..If you are of the opinion the police were just doing their jobs and you would rather they do that for your sense of security then you deserve neither security or freedom and you will loose both.

I was listening to a radio show in the car while driving, the topic was "Helmut Laws" and the nanny state. Have we become sooooo silly to think that the government has to pass laws to make sure we stay safe? It is cited that the cost of health care dictates that this is necessary. One caller even went so far as to say that if you injure yourself while riding your bike without a helmet OHIP should not pay for it. His reasoning is that why should he have to foot the bill for someone's stupidity. When it was suggested that maybe fat people should suffer the same fate when they have a heart attack his opinion was different all of a sudden rights came into play. Hmmm maybe he is a little chubby or likes his RonnieMacks to much?..

The point is we all pay into the health care system. it is there when we need it, or at least we hope so, We do not need laws to dictate individual behaviour we cannot allow the government to micro manage our lives for us. We have to accept the risks we take and the risks others take. To ensure our freedom is the widest it can be. I cannot believe how quickly some people are willing to give up their freedoms and the freedoms of others in the name of the "Greater Good" The old Soviet Union was a state that was based on that principle where is it today? Freedom prevailed, though it is having its troubles today.

The Charter of Privileges and Permissions or Canada Notwithstanding

2009-05-11T06:36:00.000-07:00

We are so very lucky here in Canada. We have Constitution and a Charter of Rights to guarantee our freedom. Now for the bad news, our charter does not guarantee anything. You might think you own your house, your car, you might think your children are yours and you might even think your boss is obliged to pay you for your work. Not so this is Canada our so called rights are not absolute and Parliament is omnipotent

POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada

91.

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

That section of the Constitution says it all they can pass any law that they desire. They can also over ride the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So what does this mean? Very simply put, our legislators could enact a law that allows slavery if they had a mind to, there is nothing in our constitution that can prevent it. An infringement of our rights only need be prescribed by LAW. And in the interest of peace, order, and good government. The icing on that cake is the supreme court has stated time and time again that only Parliament knows what is best. More is the Pity, even if the supreme court disagreed all Parliament need do is invoke the NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE....Welcome to Canada......notwithstanding.

Ontarians For The Reformation Of The Constitution

2009-04-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

Manifest

Ontarians For The Reformation Of The Constitution (O.R.C.) is a grass roots
movement born on a factory floor. At present it is a loose association of people who
share some common ideas. We believe now is the time to bring these ideas to the
public. Form a lobby to liberate the people of Ontario and Canada from the status quo
“state of affairs”. Of an antiquated Parliamentary System, an unelected Senate, and an
unelected Head of State. While we understand and realize that many hold the
Monarchy in high esteem. We believe a hybrid form of Republican system can be
established. In time this can give way to full independence from the Crown.
To this end it is the goal of the O.R.C. to establish a Constitution for the Province of
Ontario. As well as a Charter of Rights to curb the omnipotence of its Government.
To bring about Constitutional change and reform For Canada to facilitate a Republican
system of Governance. That is made of the People, by the People, and for the People.
To preserve and protect our inherent rights that were brought to us by our forefathers
when this great land was settled. Though our ties to the Crown fade in time, the

Common Law shall ever be part of the fabric of our Laws.

Be it resolved that
We The People of Canada are the true power of this Country and as such all rights belong to the individual
Citizen. The Parliament and the Senate shall only Govern by the consent of the people and shall pass no Law or Act
that abrogates nor abridges the Rights of the People. Nor shall the Prime Minister sign in to law any Act that is
injurious to our Rights or the National interest. Unless it can be so justified in a free and democratic society, it shall
impinge our Rights in the least possible manner.
We also hold that certain Rights have existed within this land that were brought to by those that settled here. They
shall continue to exist unhindered. though they are not so enumerated within this Charter. The Freedoms that these
rights enshrined and guaranteed shall stand protected by this Charter.
It is further said that it is the solemn duty of The Government of Canada to maintain and provide for a Standing
Army, Navy and Air force. To defend this land from all enemies. And to defend this Charter and the People of
Canada. Never shall their guns be turned on the lawful citizens of this land. Parliament is to provide for the veterans
of foreign wars and conflicts. And shall retrain personnel who have completed their service and duty to Our
Country.
Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and her heir The Prince of Wales. Shall remain our titular Head of State. As
long as the latter lives. The Office of Governor General shall be replaced by an elected Prime Minister.
The Office of Lieutenant Governor shall be replaced by an elected Premier in each Province. The legislative
Assemblies or Parliaments of each Province shall function like the House of Commons. The Premier shall form the
Executive Branch of the Government of the Province and the Assemblies the legislative branch of the Government.
In accordance with the democratic rights enumerated herein.
This Constitution and Charter of Rights is and shall be the supreme Law of the Land. We also hither to
decree that no law shall stand that is not in keeping with this Charter. Or conflicts with the guarantee of the Rights of
The People contained herein. We acknowledge that in time of War or National disaster, certain rights made be
infringed but shall be restored in full upon the end of such circumstances.
It is the solemn duty of each member of Government to uphold and protect the Rights
of the Citizens. That this Charter stands and places limits upon the power of
Governments not the Citizen. The People of Canada and her Provinces are a free
people and shall ever remain so. It is the reserved Right of the Citizens to recall any
Government which is seen not do its solemn duty.

A Natural Right

2009-04-17T10:16:00.000-07:00

I have encountered many hunters and long gun shooters that think handguns should be banned altogether. I asked them what about defending yourselves? You know you have a right to do that you know. I received more than my share of blank stares.

As for CCW I support it frankly I support open carry as well. with minimal conditions. one of which is an affordable use of force and the law course.
That said:

When all is said and done we little people have nothing but our rights. These rights are not granted privileges of the government to be denied at a whim or when it is politically expedient to do so. What is fundamental to both our right to defend ourselves and to our justice system is the presumption of innocence. We cannot assume evil intent on anyones part. (save but the government's because they have powers we don't).

I realize the police see more crap in a day than many of us see in a life time. I know that it is difficult to not become jaded and see everyone through the same lens but some how the police need to be able to discern the difference between a law abiding citizen and a citizen that just hasn't been caught yet.

From my/our perspective the firearms act itself has done more damage to good relations than any other act of parliament, because it criminalized 7 million people's lawful property at a stroke of a pen. A breach of any regulation leads to the confiscation all firearms and criminal sanctions against the owner. Unsafe/improper storage has become the catch all charge. Because of reverse onus it places the burden of proof upon the person charged to prove a negative. the case that comes to mind is Peter Sedge 130 registered firearms only one was not "stored properly"?

Consider. Every animal on this planet has the ability to defend itself one way or another. Every human can defend themselves in a state of nature by the use of implements. This is our right to do so, or our survival imperative if you will. Faced by an aggressor you yourself would do what ever you had to do, to survive the encounter. If you reason for a moment about this you might come to realize that all the platitudes and rhetoric are moot. That as a human being you have the right to exist and the imperative to survive. If you come to that same conclusion then it follows that No government has the right to tell me/us how or with what I/we may defend ourself with. It does how ever have the right to say where the line is between defence and aggression. Until an act is committed with the intent to cross that line everything else is just conjecture and theory.

They Have a Word For This

2009-04-14T05:10:00.000-07:00

I am going to apologize in advance I am going to use a word that some might find offencive. But there is no more apt a word to describe this with.

What would you call an organization that is highly respected in the public view? Uses this respect to influence public policy and law. They are professionals individually they have been hired to manage an essential service in our communities that we put a great deal of trust in. We were taught as children to respect and look up to these people. In a nutshell they command a great deal of respect.

A story broke a week or so ago about an employee of this organization. This employee resigned from his job. His job was to watchdog the "ETHICS" of this organization. To ensure that their actions were always above board and earnest. His decision to resign came when he brought a concern to the board of directors of this organization, the board dismissed his concern as silly and a non issue. So he tendered his resignation and has let the proverbial " cat out of the bag". More on this in a moment.

The Organization I speak of is the The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. It sounds innocuous and only stands to reason that they exist no differently than the society of engineers. However there is a marked difference. CAPC is not a mere professional organization but is indeed a lobby group with its own agenda. Like any lobby group they lobby the Government for policies that are favourable to their cause. A lobby group that receives public funds as well as private funds in the form of sponsorships. Among the private bennifactors is the Power Corporation a company that is tied to the liberal party of Canada viz campaign contributions and the Chretien family. CGI the computer company that supplied the computer system to the 2 billion dollar boondoggle gun registry. But most telling is the company that manufactures "TASERS".

CAPC has come out with unanimous support for the use of tasers on we little people even though people have died from their use. 20 or so in the past five years. Now remember this is supposed to be a non leathal implement. CAPC has also come out in support of the Gun Registry even though when bill c-68 was first proposed they did not support it. It appears that the Chiefs and their endorsements are for sale and once bought remain bought.

Knowing that "hundreds" of "thousands" of dollars have been given to this association by the very people who benifit most from their support and endorsement in the knowlege of the weight their opinion carries with the Government and the public at large constitutes a "Conflict of Interest" They are no longer impartial judges of policy they now have a stake in the outcome.

Like the Canadian Coalition For Gun Control who lost their tax exempt non profit status and reclassified as a "lobby group". So too should the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs. They have crossed that line. Indeed given their conflicts of interest can we still trust their endorsements? I know I don't. In fact all this has shown the Chiefs to be nothing more than "DouceBags".

Link to the Globe and Mail editorial

Sponsorship conflict

An Exercise in Logic

2009-04-06T11:42:00.000-07:00

It is a slow news day a rather blah Monday, rainy, chili temperatures. It's good day for an exercise in logic. Shall we start out slow?

People in Canada have had firearms for their use and protection for 400 years, this includes the period that it was part of New France. Individuals have had all different types of firearms for their use and protection since confederation. We in Canada own as many firearms as our neighbours to the south on a per capita basis. Yet as it has been pointed out by the likes of Michael Moore(rightly or wrongly) we do not suffer from as much firearms violence. Not that I wish to debate the merits of what Michael Moore has said in one of his films, his observation is valid. Bit of Canadian pride speaking here, but we are a nice group of people. I have often spoke of our sense of fair play and pragmatism.

So I put it to you my fellow Canadian is it logical to criminalize 7 million of our citizens who have enjoyed a right for 400 years? Is it fair to punish 7 million people for the actions of a handful of people who lack the ability to know right from wrong? I say a handful because the parties responsible for our pernicious firearms act amounts to at the very least 6 individuals that took their frustrations in life out on their fellow man. We read in the bold headlines of our news papers about another shooting in one of our neighbourhoods in one of our major cities quite regularly. But again this amounts to a small number of individuals engaged in criminal activity. Is not logical to punish the innocent rather than those who have committed criminal acts?

Is it logical to criminalize people before they commit a criminal act? Do we as Canadians round up people because we think they might be a risk to commit a crime? No we don't, such a notion is repugnant to us. We believe in the concept of innocent until proved guilty, do we not?

Do we think rocks,sticks, our cars possess the ability to reason and form thought? No of course not. Do we think any of the above have the ability to control our thoughts? I should hope not. Would we believe someone that said "The rock told me to break your window."? Would you consider such a statement to be rational or logical. No of course not, we would say "Grow up and take responsibility for your actions." Would we not?

If you have followed this argument thus far you see that their is a logic in play. It is individual people who cause harm to society not inanimate objects. I know perhaps what you might be thinking, " We get it guns don't hurt people yah yah blah blah". but only if, only if they could not have gotten that gun. Well that is a debate on its own, however should we begin to hold people who have had their cars stolen by thieves responsible for the actions of the thieves? Is it logical to outlaw cars because someone might steal one and use it as a get away car?

This concludes the exercise for today. Our laws should always reflect sober second thought as opposed to emotional knee jerk reactions. Laws carefully reasoned, aimed at the people who do break the law.

"I said before and I'll say it again"

2009-03-27T04:40:00.000-07:00

I am vehemently opposed to the Firearms Act. I would like to see all but the use offences or the what is known as "TRUE CRIME" sections gone. According to the UN there are 26 000 000 smalls in Canada. 21 000 000 small arms are in the hands of other wise law abiding citizens hands. which leaves about 5 million unaccounted for or in the hands of Police, Military, and criminals. The number of other wise law abiding citizens is about 5 million, the number of law abiding citizens is about 2 million for a total of 7 million. Having said this where is the blood bath that the Gun Control nuts keep warning everyone about. I mean after all if you listen to the MSM and the Gun Control nuts these evil mind control devices known as guns should be controlling nearly a third of the population. There should be mass shootings weekly if you follow their logic. We shouldn't have any women and children left with that number of guns in people's hands.

We have had 6 mass shootings in Canada in 34 years. Six people out of 32 million people in Canada had their trolleys slip their rails and obtained guns and decided to shoot people. Of the six three happened before our draconian gun laws were enacted. They are the reason that the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien decided to spend $2 billion creating the firearms act and the infrastructure to implement it. We will never know the true dollar amount because much of the documented expenses were declared cabinet secrets and sealed forever. I think our great grand children will be able to unseal them. We have had three since, under the strictest laws we have ever seen regarding firearms. Proving that the idea of trying to legislate against insanity is, well, insane.
It just doesn't work. The odd thing is that the shooters were seen as deteriorating emotionally by friends and family, or were known to have psychological troubles long before they found a gun.

If we are serious about keeping firearms out of the wrong hands then what we need to do is "Register Criminals". it would certainly be more cost effective. Simply because we have the infrastructure in place already and criminals are a small segment of our population. A registry of "Prohibited Persons" anyone convicted of a crime will be prohibited from owning firearms. With the addition of a stiff prison term if found in possession of a firearm. Even those persons that are on bail could be on the list temporarily, that is until their case is disposed of by the courts. Then whether that is temporary or not will depend on the outcome of course. Police already know about criminal records of individuals when they check the information data bank. It would be remarkably easy to figure out whether the person they just stopped for running a red light has a) a criminal record and b) whether they should just check to make sure they don't have guns in the car. Without fear of the race card being played. "Checked your licence you have a record for _____ I think I will take a look inside your vehicle. Checking for guns in the car of a known criminal is reasonable is it not? If not, why then is it okay to look in a vehicle of a citizen with no record what so ever? that does happen by the way, only because the citizen has a firearms licence.

From the time I started this entry much has happened I will now show you a news item

RCMP nab one of their own in child-porn sweep

Saint Johns, NFLD (CBC) - (CBC) - A Gander man charged last week in a Canada-wide crackdown on child pornography happens to be a retired RCMP officer.

Police described Operation Salvo, which led to the arrests of 57 people across the country, as the largest child porn sweep in Canadian history.

CBC News has learned one of the people caught in the net was Hank Johnston, 71, a former RCMP officer who was stationed for a time in central Newfoundland. He was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.

Last Thursday, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a residence in Gander, and seized computers and associated storage devices.

Johnston was released after he promised to appear in court.

CBC News contacted people who know Johnston, but none were willing to be interviewed. One, however, told CBC News that Johnston is a fine man.

Johnston is scheduled to appear in provincial court on June 16.

In all fairness to the RCMP this individual is retired. However what is probative is that he was a member. How on earth could this happen? The truth is it does, through no fault of the force's even with rigorous back ground checks how can anyone expect the force to be all knowing and all seeing? We can't, can we. No more than the firearms act can. This does demonstrate though what is wrong with the logic that Gun Control orgs, the MSM, and the Government follow. If you notice no one is saying that computers should be banned because "someone might" commit a crime with them. Nor is anyone calling for the internet to be dismantled. No that would not be fair to everyone who uses them without committing a crime. No indeed, once again correctly the person that committed the crime is being held responsible not the inanimate object. But some reason this is okay when it comes to firearms? Someone gets shot we hear nary a word about the shooter but we do hear about how guns should be outlawed because "someone might" commit a crime with one. It just defies explanation....

You Be The Judge

2009-03-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

I know it is a great deal of legalese to follow(you ought to try being a firearms owner) but where in this is the "Sky" falling in on Gun Control? I have provided the Criminal Code Of Canada Sec.
and the Firearms Act If you are seriously worried compare the changes proposed against the old laws and regs. It does boil down to common sense. And when you come down to it is a piece a paper an obstacle for someone committing a crime? If they were worried about that they would not be planning to break the law in the first place.

PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL

MP: Garry Breitkreuz Party: Conservative
Date: Monday, 09 February 2009

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (registration of firearms)

This enactment amends Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to modify the conditions required to obtain a registration certificate for firearms. It also directs the Auditor General to conduct a cost-benefit analysis once every five years to determine whether existing firearms control measures have been effective at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

CRIMINAL CODE

1. (1) Subsections 91(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following

Unauthorized possession of firearm
91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon or restricted weapon
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, without being the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

(2) Subparagraph 91(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

(3) Subsection 91(5) of the Act is repealed.

2. (1) Subsections 92(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

92. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized

(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

(2) Subparagraph 92(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

(3) Subsections 92(5) and (6) of the Act are repealed.

3. The portion of subsection 93(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Possession at unauthorized place

93. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, being the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, possesses the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition at a place that is

4. (1) The portion of subsection 94(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Unauthorized possession in motor vehicle

94. (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), every person commits an offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there is a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless

(2) Subparagraphs 94(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of
(A) a licence under which the person or other occupant may possess the firearm, and
(B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it,

(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was the holder of
(A) a licence under which that other occupant may possess the firearm, and
(B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it.

(3) Subsection 94(5) of the Act is repealed.

5. The portion of subsection 95(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of

6. Subsections 117.03(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Seizure on failure to produce authorization

117.03 (1) Despite section 117.02, a peace officer who finds
(a) a person in possession of a firearm who fails, on demand, to produce, for inspection by the peace officer, an authorization or a licence under which the person may lawfully possess the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it, or
(b) a person in possession of a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition who fails, on demand, to produce, for inspection by the peace officer, an authorization or a licence under which the person may lawfully possess it,

may seize the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition unless its possession by the person in the circumstances in which it is found is authorized by any provision of this Part, or the person is under the direct and immediate supervision of another person who may lawfully possess it.

Return of seized thing on production of authorization

(2) If a person from whom anything is seized under subsection (1) claims the thing within fourteen days after the seizure and produces for inspection by the peace officer by whom it was seized, or any other peace officer having custody of it,
(a) a licence under which the person is lawfully entitled to possess it, and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and registration certificate for it,
the thing shall without delay be returned to that person.

FIREARMS ACT

7. Subparagraph 4(a)(i) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(i) licences for firearms and authorizations and registration certificates for prohibited firearms or restricted firearms, under which persons may possess firearms in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 91(1), 92(1), 93(1) or 95(1) of the Criminal Code,

8. (1) Subsection 7(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d)
(e) is or was in possession of a non-restricted license and possesses one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms

(2) Subsection 7(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b)
(c) is or was in possession of a restricted license and possesses one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms

9. Section 12 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

(6.01) A particular individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing that particular individual to possess a handgun referred to in subsection (6.1) if that individual had applied for a registration certificate on or before December 31, 2002.

10. (1) The portion of subsection 19(1) before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

19.(1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms shall be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more places for any lawful purpose, including,

11. (2) Subsection 19(2) of the Act is repealed.

12. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;

(2) Paragraphs 23(1)(c) to (f) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c) in the case of a transfer to an individual, the transferor verifies the validity of the transferees Firearms Licence with the Canada Firearms Centre, and obtains a reference number for the inquiry;
(d) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer and a new registration certificate is issued in accordance with this Act; and;
(e) the prescribed conditions are met.

13. Subparagraph 33(a)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, lends the registration certificate for it to the borrower; or

14. Paragraph 34(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor lends the registration certificate for it to the borrower; and

15. Paragraph 35.1(1)(b) of the Act, as enacted by section 27 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, is replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to acquire and possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a restricted firearm, satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm;

16. Subsection 36(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Temporary licence and registration certificate

36. (1) A declaration that is confirmed under paragraph 35(1)(b) has the same effect after the importation of the firearm as a licence authorizing the non-resident to possess only that firearm and, in the case of a restricted firearm, as a registration certificate for the firearm until
(a) the expiry of sixty days after the importation, in the case of a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm; or
(b) the earlier of the expiry of sixty days after the importation and the expiry of the authorization to transport, in the case of a restricted firearm.

17. Subparagraph 38(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) produces his or her licence and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the registration certificate for the firearm; and

18. Paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, as enacted by section 30 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and

19. Section 41 of the Act, as enacted by section 31 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, is replaced by the following:

Temporary registration certificate

41. An authorization that is confirmed in accordance with paragraph 40(2)(e) has the same effect as a registration certificate for a restricted firearm until a registration certificate is issued for it.

20. Paragraph 44(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, holds the registration certificate for the firearm;

21. Section 60 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Registration certificates and authorizations to export or import

60. The Registrar is responsible for issuing registration certificates for prohibited firearms and restricted firearms and assigning firearms identification numbers to them and for issuing authorizations to export and authorizations to import firearms.

22.(1) Paragraph 64(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) ten years after the birthday of the holder next following the day on which it is issued, and

(2) Section 64 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1)

Extension period

(1.01) Despite subsection (1), an individual who has not applied to renew a license by the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued shall receive an automatic extension of the period for which the licence is expressed to be issued by an additional period of up to two years in order to permit the individual to apply for a renewal

Conditions of extension

(1.02) An individual who receives an extension under subsection (1.01) may not acquire any new firearms or ammunition until his or her license has been renewed.

23. Subsections 65(1) to (3) are replaced by the following:

Term of authorizations

65. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an authorization expires on the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued

24. The portion of section 66 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Term of registration certificates

66. A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm expires when

25. Paragraph 71(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and

26. Subsection 72(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Disposal of firearms — registration certificate

(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

27. Paragraphs 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) every licence, every registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm and every authorization that is issued or revoked by the Registrar;
(b) every application for a licence, a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm or an authorization that is refused by the Registrar;

28. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 97:

97.1 The Auditor General shall be directed, every five years, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on each existing firearms control measure to determine its effectiveness at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals

29. Section 105 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Demand to produce firearm

105. An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that a person possesses a firearm may, by demand made to that person, require that person, within a reasonable time after the demand is made, to produce the firearm in the manner specified by the inspector for the purpose of verifying the serial number or other identifying features of the firearm and of ensuring that, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the person is the holder of the registration certificate for it.

30. The portion of section 109 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Punishment

109. Every person who commits an offence under section 106, 107 or 108, who contravenes subsection 29(1) or who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m), (m.1) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 117(o)

31. Section 112 of the Act is repealed.

32. Sections 114 and 115 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Failure to deliver up revoked licence, etc.

114. Every person commits an offence who, being the holder of a licence, a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm or an authorization that is revoked, does not deliver it up to a peace officer or firearms officer without delay after the revocation.

Punishment

115. Every person who commits an offence under section 113 or 114 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

33. (1) Section 117 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (m):
(m.1) regulating the keeping and destruction of records by businesses in relation to firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms;

(2) Paragraph 117(o) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(o) creating offences consisting of contraventions of the regulations made under paragraph (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k.1), (k.2), (l), (m), (m.1) or (n);

34. Subsection 119(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Exception — urgency

(3) A regulation made under paragraph 117(i), (l), (m), (m.1), (n), (o), (q), (s) or (t) may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the federal Minister is of the opinion that the making of the regulation is so urgent that section 118 should not be applicable in the circumstances.

COORDINATING AMENDMENTS

35. (1) In this section, the “other Act” means An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, being chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003.

(2) On the later of the day on which section 13 of this Act comes into force and the day on which section 28 of the other Act comes into force — or, if those days are the same day, then on that day — subsection 36(1) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:

Temporary licence and registration certificate

36. (1) A declaration that is confirmed under paragraph 35(1)(d) has the same effect after the importation of the firearm as a licence authorizing the non-resident to possess that kind of firearm, and in the case of a restricted firearm, as a registration certificate for the firearm, for a period of
(a) in the case of a declaration where a report referred to in subparagraph 35(1)(b)(i) was produced, one year after the importation; or

(b) in the case of any other declaration, 60 days after the importation.

(3) On the later of the day on which section 14 of this Act comes into force and the day on which section 29 of the other Act comes into force — or, if those days are the same day, then on that day — paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

Freedom From The Press

2009-03-25T11:25:00.000-07:00

What ever happened to the days of the press reporting the news rather than manufacturing it. I say press but I do mean all media outlets in reality. I contend that you can fit onto a couple of pages all the actual news everything else is what I will refer to as fluff and stuff. Of Course it costs money to run anything and advertising is a major source of revenue. I understand that people need a place to advertise their events, that aside. I am talking about "JOURNALISTS" or "COLUMNISTS" People paid to write OPINION not report the news. And of Course every outlet has their "EDITORIAL POLICY ". The trouble with opinions is they are like noses, nearly everyone has one.

The trouble with many columnists they get to put theirs in everyones home. Some can be quite insightful others are merely the "house orchestra" for the editorial policy which in some cases is the politics of the publisher. Which is fine,,,,really,,,. I just take exception when they are used to pontificate about issues that they truly know nothing about. The journalist on the other hand wants to be a columnist, he's the weasel in the hen house so to speak. He has something to prove, he wants to show his employer he has the right stuff to be one(a columnist). We live in a world of competition he has to get noticed so they will write or present a news story as though it is earth shattering news they have uncovered. Have I mentioned they needn't get the facts straight. noooo,,,they are not writing for your sake but for their own. After all they want the promotion.

I think of this as freedom of the press run amok. The problem is they have forgotten about the responsibility that the right carries with it. They could care less about every other right they might trample in producing their story, the only right that matters is their right. Maybe if they truly championed individual rights from time to time rather than looking out for their self interest we peons would actually be able to make an informed choice about something. It would be nice for a change to get a news report that is unvarnished and unbiased, one that is in fact a report. A tennis star once said when asked by a journalist about her sexuality she said "In my Country (Czechoslovakia) there is no freedom of the press, here in the west there is no freedom from the press".

Another Informed Voice

2009-03-20T09:57:00.000-07:00

Bellow is a letter to the Prime Minister written by Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control. I have read the proposed bill c301 and have to ask did Ms Cukier even read the bill? Or is it the usual modus oporendi of the Coalition for Gun Control to make it up as they go along. To be frank and honest about the proposed bill it doesn't even come close to dismantling gun control in Canada. As usual there is a great deal of rhetoric and little real substance to the CCGC position. The proposed bill would only eliminate the registry of shotguns and rifles. It would still require one to have the proper licence and background checks.

There are some other inclusions into the bill that fall under what a normal person would regard as "Common Sense" issues. Whether you realize it or not some people have a licence for what are known as 12(x)s or prohibited firearms. They have these because the law has allowed them viz a grandfathering clause in the law. They are in lawful possession of these firearms. The previous Liberal Government pulled their special authorizations to shoot these on a licenced range. In pulling this authorization they effectively made having these firearms pointless. They did this for no other reason than they could but could not lawfully suspend their licences without just cause.

The goal of the firearms act is disarmament of the civilian population one class at a time. Bill 301 would restore what was already lawful before it would not create anything new. Another item to be streamlined was the registering of pistols, revolvers, and short barrelled long guns known as the restricted class. Instead of having a piece of paper for each it would be reduced to one piece of paper for all of them you own. Another item was the authorization to transport again each individual firearm in the restricted class has to have an ATT for each this was to be streamlined into one for all. No different than your automobile insurance you get one slip with all the cars you have insured on one pink slip.

These are only reductions in the amount of paper work that must be processed. It is premised in the fact that if you have a valid licence for the class of firearm it is logical that you are qualified to possess it and transport to the range, the gunsmith, and home. No where in the bill does it do away with the registration of the restricted or prohibited classes of firearms. Nor does the bill do away with the rigorous screening process in order to be licenced.

To have a restricted licence you must pass three levels of screening and have no criminal record. The first is local the second is cross Canada the third is with Interpol. To purchase and register a firearm in this class you must be a member in good standing of an approved gun club. So contrary to popular belief that any person can walk into Walmart or the corner gun shop and buy a gun and walk out with it. It is very strictly controlled and will remain so.

Now if you take for gospel what is being said about firearms in the Mainstream Media and the various gun control orgs you would be lead to believe that blood is running in the streets and guns need to be removed from society. However if you look at the actual numbers that statscan compiled you will actually be amazed. In all of Canada there were 594 homicides, this includes all methods. 188 shootings, 190 stabbings 116 beatings, 50 strangulations, 4 burnings/suffocations, 19 other methods, 27 not known, in 2007. 188 people shot sounds like a great deal but when you compare the total of the other categories 406 in total 188 isn't even half of the others and and is not even a third of total homicides. Putting it into perspective 406 people were murdered without guns.

I will not get into a battle of the sexes and who hurts who more. That is just childish and places a higher value of one human being over another. To me violence is violence and that is not acceptable in a civil society. It is no more acceptable than what a feminist of note suggested some years ago. That all males between the ages of 15-45 ought to be incarcerated in order to prevent violence against women. Yet these humanitarians fail to mention anything about violent women.

The one thing the statscan report makes clear about domestic homicide is the perpetrator has a long history of spousal abuse. By law they would be prohibited from owning a firearm. However it does not seem to impair their ability to kill the one they claim to love. It seems by Ms Cukier it is better they be beaten, stabbed or strangled than shot the sad fact of the statscan study is domestic violence has remained steady and unchanged 7% of all crime. Another sad fact is among suicides, her gun law hasn't changed that number either in the absence of a gun they chose another method. I really wonder where this woman's gets her sensibilities. Personally I would rather take a bullet than being beaten to death.

Friday, March 6, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Re : Do not dismantle gun control. Defeat Bill C-301 on April 1, 2009 Dear Sir,

The signatories to this letter are deeply concerned about Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz’s Private Member Bill C-301, which will relax controls on restricted and prohibited guns (including handguns, assault weapons and machine guns) as well as eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns. Please ensure your party defeats this proposed legislation at second reading on April 1, 2009.

You have stated your commitment to ending violence against women, most recently in the letter many of us received on December 6th 2008. Our gun law is not only a monument to those who were killed on December 6, 1989 at l’École Polytechnique, but is recognized worldwide as an effective tool for reducing gun violence targeting women. Commitment to ending violence against women requires more than wearing a white ribbon on December 6th. As the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre approaches, it would be a travesty if the party you lead helps dismantle the gun law we all worked so hard to pass.

Our laws have made Canada safer.
· In 1991, more than 1400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800.
· The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
· Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in
2004 (the numbers of
murders without guns have not dropped as significantly).

· Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.
Policing, public health and victims’ organizations across Canada – including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College - support sensible gun control. On behalf of millions of women in Canada, so do we. As the Alberta Court of Appeal noted, gun control is a women’s
issue: women represent a small
percentage of Canada’s 2 million gun owners. But they account for a high percentage of the victims of gun violence.

Mandatory screening, licensing and renewal for all firearm owners as well as registration of all firearms are important measures for protecting the safety of women.
Renewable licenses reduce
the risk that individuals with a history of domestic violence will have access to firearms.
Registration ensures that the police can take preventative action. The proposed law extends the licensing period for 10 years for all gun owners (including those who own handguns and assault weapons), reducing the opportunities for review and ensuring that information is up to date. Canada’s licensing system, with spousal renewal, is essential for the safety of women.
Do not help undermine it and jeopardize our safety and the safety of our children.

Continued from page 1

Rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill women and children in domestic violence. Access to a firearm is the fifth leading predictor of female homicide in domestic violence. The proposed law also eliminates the requirement to register rifles and shotguns. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of registration as a means of enforcing the licensing provisions of the law. If a licensed owner can buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated with the guns through the registry, there is little to prevent them from giving those guns to individuals without licenses.
Information about the guns
individuals owns is essential to enforcing prohibition orders and supporting preventative action by Canada’s police agencies; they currently use the registry 9400 times per day. There are many powerful semi-automatic firearms currently classified as unrestricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique. Repeatedly, inquests into the murders of women and children recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to prevent further tragedies.

There is no place for military and tactical weapons in the hands of civilians. Almost 400,000 Canadians signed a petition calling for a ban on these weapons and most countries in the world prohibit civilian possession of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. The shooting at Dawson college taught us a bitter lesson =E
2 that the lists of prohibited
firearms have not been
updated since the law passed in 1995. We want more control on these weapons, not less. Bill
C-301 relaxes controls allowing fully automatic weapons to be taken to shooting ranges.
Canadian women continue to support overwhelmingly the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Polls have shown that while half of gun owners opposed the law, 77% of people living with a gun owner supported it. Women are rightly concerned about access to rifles and shotguns in cases of domestic violence and suicide:

· 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle, the very guns that opponents of the law say are not the cause of gun violence;

·Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides; · 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that the key to protecting women and children is thorough screening in licensing and licence renewals for gun owners; ·When guns are used there are more likely to be multiple victims, often children; ·Although opposition to gun control is stronger where rates of gun ownership are higher (particularly in rural and western communities), women and children are particularly at risk from guns in the home in these areas.

Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women.
Ending violence against women

requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities, by defeating Bill C-301 on April 1.
Signatories listed on attached page.

One Picture Paints A Thousand Words

2009-03-12T08:14:00.000-07:00

London, ON Board of Control member Gina Barber interrupted a city council meeting, waving a bumper sticker she received in the mail. Despite being ruled out of order and on the verge of tears, she read the message aloud in council chambers. Barber had requested London Council support Toronto Mayor Cottontop the Halfwit’s handgun ban. Her motion was defeated.

'No' to gun ban support

On Monday, March 9th Gina Barber of London Ontario's Board of Control tabled a motion to help pressure the Federal government for a nationwide ban of legally owned handguns. The motion was in support of Toronto's Mayor David Miller, who blames legal owners and Americans for the problems of violence with guns in his city. Several council meetings were held with advice from legal owners who wanted a more effective crime prevention strategy without affecting legitimate sportsmen and women. Council also heard commentary from the police chief, deciding with a vote of 12 to 5 against supporting a ban, as it would have no useful effect on criminals.

Ms. Barber noted in council that she had recieved very little community support for a ban, but a large volume of mail against it. Even the city's Police Chief, Murray Faulkner has said, "Those who choose to break the law will do so, regardless of bans."

Responsible owners across Canada have been pushing for changes to firearms law that would put more public money into enforcement and reduction strategies, instead of money-wasters such as a Long Gun Registry or handgun bans. The debate about effective crime control has continued to be one of the most talked about topics in Canada next to the economy.

The bumper sticker reads:Only Crooked Politicians Fear Armed Citizens.
Indeed one has to question their motives, after all why would a politician support a law that disarms the law abiding while leaving the criminal elements of society to carry on business as usual. I think I would have to agree that only a crooked politician could support such a law one that would support this in the name of "Public Safety". If anyone is interested Britain banned handguns back in 1998, since then they have been awash with gun crimes. And they are an Island State.

Now on YouTube 1000 Words

Enough with guns already

2009-03-07T21:10:00.000-08:00

Paul J. Henderson
The Times

Friday, March 06, 2009

OK Chilliwack, this will not be popular, but in light of ongoing gunplay on the streets of the Lower Mainland I think it's time to say there is almost no reason for anyone other than the police and the military to have guns.

I say "almost" because there are certainly paramilitary organizations such as border services who need to have firearms. And a shotgun or rifle is important for those who work in the bush (myself included at one time) as defence from bears. Farmers and ranchers also clearly need guns at times.

But that's about it. I really don't see why anyone else should have any gun of any kind.

On Wednesday I was at a press conference at the Pacific Region Training Centre with a display of weapons seized from a Surrey couple who were also found with more than 1,500 armour-piercing rounds. What struck me was something said, I believe, by RCMP Superintendent Bill Ard: "There is no legitimate purpose for this ammunition."

An overstatement in the extreme. Because after the announcement, the media were escorted to the PRTC firing range where we were given a demonstration by Sgt. Robert Tan from the Lower Mainland Emergency Response Team. Tan fired his weapon at a dummy wrapped in body armour.

The reality was that Sgt. Tan was not shooting illegal armour-piercing bullets such as those seized. He was shooting perfectly legal .223-calibre shells from his police issue C7 rifle. A gun that is the Canadian equivalent of the well-known American M-16. And, more importantly, the equivalent of the commercial AR-15: a gun that is legal to own.

So why would anyone need the equivalent M16 in the city? Or in the suburbs? In the bush or in the country for that matter?

I suppose firing a gun as an extension of shooting a bow and arrow at a target is some sort of transposed primal urge, which comes from a species that has been hunting for longer than it has been farming. And there is nothing I respect more than someone who has the wherewithal and the inclination to get meat by killing it themselves.

So, there is clearly then a logic to the legality of hunting firearms, but many of the guns available from gun dealers--like the couple caught illegally importing high capacity assault rifle magazines and in possession of 1,500-plus armour-piercing rounds--have nothing to do with hunting.

(At least not anything other than hunting humans.)

I saw a bumper sticker the other day on a massive pickup truck driven by a stern looking fellow that said, "Keep Your Laws off my Guns." To that I say, "yikes."

Those who oppose any governmental interference into their gun ownership always overlook, or more likely willingly ignore, an important point: guns, when used as directed and intended, do nothing but kill.

Whenever I have suggested that almost no one should have guns, target shooting is brought up. To that I say try archery or badminton or knitting. Get a new hobby.

But the accidental and intentional killing of men, women and children by guns has to stop. The only way to stop it is to eliminate the gun culture perpetuated by Hollywood and those who like to shoot stuff for fun.

I don't see much difference between a Chilliwack gun collector who has an AR-15 and a gang member who wants his hands on armour-piercing bullets.

Both like to play with something that kills. Both will probably kill if pushed too far, and both own weapons that may unintentionally kill an innocent bystander. Enough already.
© Chilliwack Times 2009;

Mr Henderson says more about himself than about guns. But lets retire some untruths and myths first shall we? Firstly all rifle ammunition will penetrate police body armour. It is just not designed for it. Secondly Mr Henderson makes a big deal about the appearance of a rifle that people with the correct licence may buy and own. We are talking about the AR-15 rifle which resides in the restricted category. This means that it receives the same treatment as a handgun. It resembles a M-16 or C7 rifle
M-16

AR-15

Look alike fire roughly the same size ammo. M16 5.56 mm AR15 .223 cal. but that is where the similarity ends. They both function differently
here is a video explaining the differences of Function semi automatic v full automatic

I hope this clears up any misconceptions. I dislike it when journalist sensationalizes something in order to try and sway public opinion. If one were to replace the stern pick up driving gun owner with the bumper sticker with black man in SUV we would call him a bigot! Now as for his comparisons of a gang member and a law abiding gun owner and the wish to own an AR 15 "I don't see much difference between a Chilliwack gun collector who has an AR-15 and a gang member who wants his hands on armour-piercing bullets.Both like to play with something that kills. Both will probably kill if pushed too far, and both own weapons that may unintentionally kill an innocent bystander. Enough already." In Psychology they call this Projection. When a person disowns their own thoughts because they are unthinkable or too disturbing too them, that they would even think this way they attach these thought to another person. This is how the mind copes with such thoughts that run contrary to our own morals or ethics. So what Mr Henderson is really saying is I don't see any difference between myself and a gang member I would like to own something that kills and use it to that end this kind of thinking would rattle anyone, no shame in that. So he "Projects" those thoughts onto a generic person in this case "A lawful gun owner". So I would hope Mr Henderson never is allowed to own any gun because he is truly dangerous. I would like to close with this last thought. "guns, when used as directed and intended, do nothing but kill." No this is not true a gun when used properly will hit the target you are aiming at, it is an effective means of preserving your life. The Gas Chamber, the Electric Chair, and the Hangmans Noose when used as directed do only one thing that is kill. And we all know that the aforementioned serve entirely different function in a Society.

Dalton's Bad Habit:

2009-03-07T21:09:00.001-08:00

PC Leader, Finance Critic say McGuinty frittered away $27 billion revenue increase
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 08:00

QUEEN'S PARK – Dalton McGuinty has raked in unprecedented revenue from taxes and federal transfers and has squandered it all, Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory and Ontario PC Finance Critic Tim Hudak (Niagara West-Glanbrook) said today.

“The reality is, Dalton McGuinty has a serious spending problem,” said Tory. “To fritter away $27 billion - a 40 per cent revenue increase - and have nothing set aside for when times got tough is an extraordinary failure of leadership on Dalton McGuinty’s part.”

Added Hudak, “If Dalton McGuinty had increased government spending at a still generous rate of inflation plus population growth, Ontario would have had a $17 billion cushion to reduce taxes or invest in infrastructure during this recession. Instead, we are plunging into a deep deficit."

Tory and Hudak said total government program spending has increased by $28.3 billion or a whopping 48 per cent since 2003. Until this year, program spending grew at an average annual rate of 8 per cent, more than double the average rate of inflation and population growth combined. In 2008 for example, program spending grew by 10.5 per cent, nearly five times the combined rate of inflation and population growth.

“How can Dalton McGuinty possibly claim to have a plan when Ontario’s finances have gone from surplus to record deficit in weeks?” asked Tory. “This government’s inexcusable foot-dragging when it comes to the budget has left Ontarians in the dark about the finances of their own province!”

While Dalton McGuinty drained the Provincial Treasury, Ontario lost 275,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs and finished last or next to last in growth and private sector job creation in Canada.

“If you owned a business that had a 40 percent increase in revenue over five years but you lost some of your most talented staff, you made fewer products and you ended up in the red: wouldn't you fire that manager?,” asked Hudak in the Legislature on Thursday.

“Dalton McGuinty increased spending unsustainably and missed opportunities to make Ontario more competitive. Ontario is in considerably worse shape today because of this,” said Tory.

I'm Not Blowing Smoke

2009-03-07T21:05:00.000-08:00

Wed, 02/11/2009 - 18:32

Whoever coined the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction" must have had extensive dealings with government. Poor Ted Kindos has one strange story to tell.

Ted Kindos is the owner of Gator Ted's Tap & Grill in Burlington. Four years ago, Kindos committed the apparently grievous act of asking a medically licensed marijuana smoker to move away from the front door of his restaurant. The smoker, a man by the name of Steve Gibson, took such objection that he decided to complain to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) on the grounds of bias against a disabled person.

A reasonable person might have expected the case to be dismissed outright, but the ensuing details makes one wonder what the OHRC was smoking. Here's what they came up with:

As part of a settlement offer that took no account of Kindos’ $40,000 in legal fees (Gibson had his bills generously covered by the taxpayer), the struggling business owner was ordered to pay the licensed marijuana smoker a sum of $2,000 for pain and suffering, to educate his staff and the public about the human rights code, and to post signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers.”

But Kindos' ordeal doesn't end there. After the settlement, Kindos was helpfully informed by Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission that Ontario laws prohibit him from serving anybody in possession of a controlled substance, even if that substance is medically permitted. With the OHRC-mandated signs hanging in his restaurant, Kindos was told that his liquor license was now in jeopardy.

As he enters the fifth year of this dispute, Kindos continues to incur substantial legal fees in the defense of his liquor license. Meanwhile, his business prospects are clouded by a recession that has been particularly harmful to the hospitality sector.

The OHRC was originally intended to mediate cases of housing or employment discrimination. How did this agency overstep such a simple but important mandate?

Unfortunately, the McGuinty government has given the OHRC and other government agencies the green light to take on a more intrusive role. After all, why worry about the backlog of 3000 OHRC cases, including complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace, when you can blaze exciting new trails for human rights through Gator Ted's Tap and Grill?

If the McGuinty Government doesn’t bring about an intervention and focus these drifting agencies to their actual mandates, the whole experience will simply leave the OHRC and others jonesing for more.

Bill would more than scrap long-gun registry

2009-03-06T15:30:00.000-08:00

Video Safe and Secure

Published Tuesday March 3rd, 2009 Kings Country Record

One of the most expensive and ineffective programs ever imposed on the people of Canada has been the long-gun registry for non-restricted firearms. When the federal Liberals first introduced the long-gun registry 10 years ago, they insisted the cost would be about $2 million. Today, its cost is pegged at $2 billion and counting.

The Conservative Party of Canada has been on record for some time in opposing the registry and it was a campaign pledge in the 2006 election to eliminate it. It is common knowledge that such action has been stalled because the three opposition parties, with their majority in the House of Commons, would not allow such legislation to pass. As a result, our government has instead acted to improve licensing provisions, granting periods of amnesty to allow gun owners to bring themselves in compliance with the law and setting aside costly registration fees. And, just recently, the prime minister re-stated the government's determination to abolish the registry and concentrate resources on attacking the criminal use of firearms rather than targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Meanwhile, my colleague Garry Breitkreuz, the MP for Yorktown-Melville in Saskatchewan, has brought the issue forward with Private Members' Bill C-301. His bill not only proposes to scrap the long-gun registry, but goes much further to lower costs and reduce what he calls the unnecessary complexities of the Firearms Act. And, he contends, these moves will have no negative effect on public safety. There are numerous changes proposed in Mr. Breitkruz's bill. In addition to the elimination of the long-gun registry for non-restricted firearms, there is a requirement for the Auditor General to perform a cost/benefit analysis of the program every five years. Other clauses would combine the Possession Only licences with the Possession and Acquisition licences, change the licence-renewal period to 10 years and change the grandfathering dates for handguns to clarify and improve what is now a confusing situation for legal owners.

Mr. Breitkreuz has been a severe critic of what he describes as the "myths" of the long-gun registry. He dismisses the contention, for example, that it's a valuable tool for police who access it thousands of times a day. He notes that this police usage mostly happens automatically when police officers check the Canadian Police Information Centre for daily inquiries and get gun registry information whether they want it or not. Lists of firearms provided when police respond to emergency calls show legal guns only, which are the weapons an officer is least likely to be harmed by. In addition, police investigations are not greatly helped by the registry because the information is so inaccurate it cannot be used as evidence in court.

Registered long guns were used in homicides nine times from 1997 to 2004 and the registry of some seven million firearms did not prevent any of these deaths. Instead, 84 per cent of the firearms used in the commission of crimes are unregistered and 75 per cent of those were illegal guns smuggled into Canada. Where firearms were used in a violent crime, more than 71 per cent involved handguns and only nine per cent involved rifles or shotguns. Very few of those were even registered.

There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003 and 121 of those cases are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a shopping list for thieves. Mr. Breitkreuz sums up his position this way, "Many Canadians have come to realize that the long-gun registry wasn't working because it targets the wrong people. Criminals are not hampered in the least by the registry." Even the Auditor General's 2002 report says the program was excessively regulatory, overly complex and very costly to deliver and had become difficult for owners to comply.

It remains to be seen how Bill C-301 will fare in the minority Parliament. The proponent's best bet could be a free vote. There has been speculation that several opposition members could support such a measure, if Party discipline is not imposed, because their constituents have given them that message.

Greg Thompson is MP for N.B. Southwest and minister of veterans affairs.

2009-03-03T08:20:00.001-08:00

Let me make myself clear. I am not a right wing nut job, I am philosophically an Anarchist. The truth be told the existence of sovereign states has done more harm than good. Realistically I am a "live and let live" libertarian. If states are to exist they should be seen and not heard, or perhaps more aptly put not felt. If I appear to be less than progressive so be it all progress is not for the good as we are lead to believe. We in Ontario have standards that we have become accustom to I see it as the job of Government to keep are standards up without breaking the bank and keeping their nose (the government's) out of my life and my business.
That meaning maintaining our freedoms and our rights to conduct our lives as we see fit. When I became eighteen years of age I was much freer from my parents than a year earlier. Choice was the reward, the ability to make choices including bad ones. That was my right. I have over time come to cherish my rights, appreciating what it means to live in a free society where I am free to screw up or not. However I couch that statement firmly with the proviso that no one is harmed by my screw ups.

I cannot for the life of me understand people who are willing to give up any rights in the pursuit of a perceived good. "Public Safety" has become the a catch all blanket motive with the rallying cry of "If it saves one life". That is the most disingenuous statement ever uttered by anyone, largely because if one takes full meaning of that phrase and put it into practise we would be legislated into bubble wrap and not allowed out our front doors. After all how many people are accidentally killed in their homes? Driving to work everyday would be right out after all how many people are killed on the way to work. If acted upon that phrase could bring society to a screeching halt.

Life has always had its dangers. From are earliest beginnings there was always something looking to eat us. We learnt to over come this, we even thrived in a very dangerous world. Now what has this to do with Dalton McGuinty? Honest, I will get to that. Our species learnt to live with risks and dangers. People getting killed or maimed was part of living yes we did learn to do thing safer but that was not a guarantee that accidents wouldn't happen. So we invented Tort Law, which is the idea that we are responsible for the harms we cause. Which when you think of it, it is not a bad thing on the whole. How ever clever solicitors and barristers have become quite rich of of it. Anyone who has needed a Lawyer knows the cost of justice in our Country.

Many of would agree rules are a good thing, they tell everyone what is expected of them and set a limit on what will be tollerated in a civil society. But what happens when the rules become more important than the business of living in a free society. Where there is a naive belief that all anyone has to do is make a rule and a problem is solved. Dalton McGuinty seems to think so. McGuinty has in his tenure as Premiere of Ontario broken more promises than any politician in the history of the Country. I was always taught as a child that breaking a promise was the same as telling a lie, thus making me a liar. We all know liars cannot be trusted. Why then would you put your trust in Dalton Mcguinty?

While some of his lies are in the form of broken promises (263 last count) other are in the form of flip flopping on an issue. He said that he would not pass a law banning smoking in cars with children low and behold he did that very thing. He has even made lies of omission he did tell us that he was going to pass a law making it mandatory that children must be in a safety seat. To me either one is a no brainer. I do not require a law for that, do you? Maybe other people do? I then must ask you How did we reach the ages that we are today with out child safety seats or our mothers and or fathers smoking in the car? We all have at least one know it all friend who has an opinion on everything who at times gets on our nerves when the offer unsolicited advice on raising our children. We do not enjoy them when they do it, why is alright when a government does it?

A Must See Video.

2009-02-20T06:26:00.000-08:00

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vo...91734.300k.asx

I think our Chief's in Canada could learn from this gentleman. This is the Police Chief of San Francisco. Responding to media charges of wrong doing in the pursuit if a suspect and his death.
In Canada we have a similar situation. We have judges that treat lightly the acts committed by habitual offenders. If that isn't enough we have what is called "good time" which is the time spent in lock up waiting to be tried x2, that is if you are locked up at all. This has created a revolving door justice system. Our Police keep arresting them and judges keep letting them off easy. Of course plea bargains do play a part in all this but to what end?

The Missing Link

2009-02-19T06:43:00.000-08:00

It has been nigh on to 14 years since Bill C-68 The Firearms Act has been law in Canada. I know many Canadians believe that this was a good idea and was way over due. Sadly many of these same Canadians were sold a bill of goods in what they were told about this Act. They were lead to believe that this would solve the problem of gun violence, and "We" could all sleep safely in our homes knowing the law will protect them. Unfortunately there are two worlds in Canada, the first is the world that we are familiar with. It is a world filled with friends, family,bills,work and play, a world filled with optimism and hope. It is not all smiles and chuckles it is a world of struggle to keep our lives afloat, we have our misfortunes and tragedies. Be that as is may we all try to get along and do our best for the most part. Most of all we try to play by the rules of civil society at all times. The second world in Canada is not such a pleasant place, it is a world of mistrust and pessimism. A world where the struggle is just to stay alive. It is a predatory world where the weak are eaten up by substance abuse and are prey to the predators of that world. I am talking about the criminal world. A world where survival of the fittest is the rule not the exception, where the strong band together to be stronger. The world where the rules of civil society are not in play but rather their own code. You need something take it, Need money steal it or sell drugs. Do what ever you want to do all you need worry about is who might come gunning for you. The law is just an inconvenience, time in jail or prison is like going to school or summer camp. Given the sentences that are handed out by our judiciary it is like camp and in this world a criminal record is a badge of honour.

I have outlined this as accurately as I can. I have met some very scary people in my time and I am only an observer. What many people fail to realize is that to the second world life is a deadly game played by cheats, liars and sociopaths. Where the ideal of "COOL" is how tough you are or at least appear to be. In my own opinion true toughness is not sinking to criminal activity to get to where you want to go in life but rather working hard toward that end. As I have said though in this world the law is merely an inconvenience. There is a missing link between the world of the law abiding and the world of the criminal. I know from time to time, an other wise law abiding person slips commits a grave error in judgement and they find themselves on the wrong side of the law. It happens. For the most part we obey they laws of the land. That is the missing link, we don't think like they do, we don't behave like they do.

Therefore the logic escapes me why anyone would think that the firearms act would stop them. In fact it has encouraged them. It has created a new revenue stream for them (smuggled/stolen guns). This is where the "missing link" again becomes apparent because to them it is just another law to be broken. I ask you does it make sense? If someone has the stones to murder someone what possible effect is making the ownership of a gun illegal? Even if we were able to remove the invention of the gun from the pages of history to the point that they never existed there would still be the means to kill. If a person is willing to break our highest law who or what is going to stop them? Even if mankind had never discovered metal the means to kill would still exist. The firearms act did not solve this problem nor could it. It has only ever affected people like you and me. Law abiding people, solely because we reside in the first world I mentioned. We don't want to go to jail, not even for a day. We don't want a criminal record because it is a badge of shame to us. The logic follows that even if guns were outlawed completely the denizens of the second world would still have them. England is an Island, it has it been a hopeless effort preventing guns from finding their way into the hands of their denizens.

But when worlds collide tragedy follows. There is not a wall between our worlds we co-exist side by side we intermingle on the streets bump into one another. We don't judge books by their covers nor people for that matter, so we don't have the means to identify citizen from denizen. We don't know for sure until we are confronted alone by a denizen(s) and their intent made clear, we are todays prey. I am passed the idea that we can change them all we might be able to do is reclaim a few. Perhaps a 3 strikes rule would serve as a deterrent. I think a place like Baffin Island would be a good location to lock them up, hungry bears would be the best guards. Feeding them and clothing them would be the extent of the care, if they want to kill each other who cares? They are not on our streets. The main flaw to be addressed in this line of thinking is, for every one locked up there is one in the wings waiting. That is where the social engineers energies might be better spent. Applied solutions at the early years of life would be more productive.

But still there is that missing link between gun control and crime. How do we make our streets safer? Drugs are heavily controlled substances in Canada yet they still find their way to our streets. You cannot buy a gun without a licence yet guns find their way onto the streets. 90 % are smuggled. Ban handguns to take care of 10% that are stolen from their lawful owners? That would be unfair to the owners who have not had their guns stolen, and just wrong. We do not hold car owners responsible for the crimes committed in stolen cars. The difference in most peoples minds is that we need our cars but we don't need guns. Then the question is do we? Since when do we need to justify the things we own? But guns hurt people, they were made only for one thing and that is to kill. No not entirely true. The electric chair and the gas chamber were made for killing for that matter a hangman's noose. But these serve an entirely different purpose in Society.

What many fail to realize and I hope I am pointing out this missing link. The worry and concern is not people like you and I having guns. Indeed you and I could own what ever small arms we wanted to. The concern is the denizens what is in their hands. Now ask yourself what did thieves and bandits use before guns? Passing any laws restricting our access to firearms only does that affect our access. Leaving the denizens alone and unaffected. What we are seeing happening now with our current law is the imbalance. We are seeing denizens running free because they know to a high degree of certainty(like 100%) we don't have anything but a cell phone on our hips or breast pocket. That we have nothing in our cars that will hurt them. Bill c-68 has seen to this. This is why crimes like rape, car jackings, home invasions, and that old favourite muggings can happen in our day and age. It is this missing link or in legalese a rational connection between the firearms act and denizens of the criminal world.

The largest concern is firearms falling into their hands. While we might be able to plug some of the holes in the border it would be nigh to impossible to plug all of them. Remember we have a very long frontier that is unguarded but it is worth trying to do. The trouble with the firearms act and its registry is it creates a list of who is licenced and who has what kind of firearm. It is all in a central data base on a Government computer. Can you say "hacker", no computer is entirely secure what would prevent an enterprising wanna be denizen with computer skills from hacking the system? In fact it has been hacked, providing a complete list of who owns what and where. What do you think such a list would be worth to the denizens? To make matters worse The Province of Ontario has the Ammunition Act or as it is also known the Baylis Law, named for the Police officer gunned down by a crack dealer (one that was scheduled for deportation). This act requires each store that sells ammunition. to collect personal details of the purchaser including home address and type of gun it is for. This document or book is in the hands of your average worker in places like Walmart and Canadian Tire. There is no requirement for the security of this book. Any employee can get access to this book. What do you think that book is worth to the local denizens? Perhaps the store clerk is a student and is being bullied into obtaining copies? These are examples of Government provided catalogues for firearms. Perhaps if these did not exist there would be fewer stolen guns? If you have noticed I just made a link to gun control and crime. I am sure it is a link that none of the politicians nor advocates for gun control intended, nor would they concede that link. But it does illustrate the law of unintended consequences. The safest gun is the gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen, away from the well meaning prying eyes of regulation. The idea is keep the denizens guessing, as long as they think that we are armed the safer we citizens will be.

Just as an end note the Chief of Police in York region has announced to all denizens that there are 80 000 lawfully owned firearms in Vaughn. Do you think there will be an increase in break and enters there?

Keeping Canada Wholesome, Censorship and Canada Customs

2009-02-13T05:08:00.000-08:00

It is hard to believe in the 2009, I am writing such a piece. Yet here I am. I do not believe in collective rights but rather in the rights of individuals to decide what is right or wrong for themselves. I grew up in William Davis's Ontario that is to say a Province run by fellow that believed that all you had to do was pass a law against something and problem solved. One of his creations was a commission headed by one Judy Lemarche, she was tasked to study obscenity and porn blah blah blah. But if that wasn't enough Davis acted upon her recommendations and implemented them viz the Ontario Censor Board. In Ontario the average person was not mature, intelligent nor worldly enough to make such decisions for themselves oh heck no. Worse was Davis was arrogant enough to justify the censor board by saying Ontarians want to be protected. Oddly enough you could watch as much violence as you wanted as long as no one got naked in the process. The Censor board could edit films or out right ban them if the film makers didn't agree to the changes. It was during the 70's and as a teen with a strong independant streak decided that censorship was wrong. I spoke out against censorship as best I could, in school and in my personal life. I can honestly say that I have always been against government imposed limits on freedom. I first heard of a book store in Vancouver that was being charged with possesion of obscene material back in the late 80's. Canada Customs as it was then known as was confiscating began stopping shipments of books to them at the border. Information was passed along to police who raided the book shop confiscated and charged them. This book store specialized in gay and lesbian literature but the offending books were leaned toward the rough trade BDSM. The part that raised my ire was that they felt the should be excepted from the law because they were GAY. Which for me is niether here nor there, no one is above the law. If the is wrong then task yourselves to getting the law changed for everyone not just your special interest. Moving along to 2009 to and the age of the information super highway, this same book store is still having its shipments stopped at the border. However any other book store can get the materials shipped to them no problem. Canada Customs seems to only open boxes addressed to them. Now this is just plain wrong. Not only that it is just plain stupid in this day and age of the internet borders no longer exist were information and media are concerned.

The CPC has a bill that will alow police access to your internet communications. It is being packaged and being sold as an update to a law that was written in the age of rotary phones. It is also being sold as means to combat crime and terrorism. I highly doubt it. Never trust the government with such power. While the internet may be viewed as a safe haven for the undesirable elements of society, you and I use it every day to convey information and opinions. Opinions that might one day attract attention from the authorities, would you want to be watched every time you surf? Would you want the Govenrment watching what you consider to be annonymous and private affairs? Write your MP and tell them no. They cannot guarantee that it would not be abused.

Ten Myths of Gun Control

2009-02-12T07:18:00.001-08:00

Myth #1: The Gun Registry is a valuable tool for the police and they access it 9,500 times per day.
The “9,500 hits” figure for the Canadian Firearms Registry On-Line (CFRO) is misleading per the Public Security Ministry’s website of May 17 2006 (Ques 18). Whenever police officers access the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for any reason, such as for a simple address check, an automatic hit is generated with CFRO whether the information is desired or not. This is the case, for example, with the Toronto Police Service (5,000 officers), the Vancouver Police (1,400 officers), Ottawa Police Service (1,050 officers) and the BC RCMP (5,000 officers). Additionally, every legal purchase of a firearm generates three administrative hits to the registry; for the buyer, for the seller and for the firearm. These changes to the computer records are conducted by police agencies and are counted in the totals. Given the seven million firearms registered in the system, legal transfers must account for the majority of “hits”. Clearly, a hit on the Registry does not denote legitimate investigative use.

Myth #2: The registry provides police officers information on the presence of firearms when they respond to emergency calls.
Maybe. The Firearms Registry only provides a list of the legal guns, the very guns an officer is least likely to be harmed by. The truth is, very few legally owned guns are used in the commission of crimes. The latest report shows some 7% of firearm homicides were committed with registered firearms in the last 8 years. The elimination of the registry will only eliminate the useless lists of lawful guns. The fact an individual has a firearms licence will still be known to the police. They will know whether a legal firearm is at a particular location by virtue of the fact that an individual has a licence. The abolition of the long-gun registry doesn’t affect that. Even so, it is the illegal firearms that police are usually the most concerned about (93% in the last 8 years). No police officer would rely on the inaccurate registry data to dictate how they approach a domestic or emergency call. They would approach all calls with an appropriate measure of safety.

Myth #3: Firearms related deaths have been reduced due to the long gun registry.
Reduction in firearms deaths started in the mid 1970’s, well prior to the introduction of the registry in 2003 (StatsCan)and mirrors a proportionally greater reduction experienced in the United States, where firearms laws are being loosened. There is no evidence to link the reduction in deaths with the registry and it has far more to do with the aging demographic that anything else.

Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered . . . the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.

Myth #5: The registry protects women in violent domestic situations.
Registered long guns were used in (all) homicide only twice in 2003 (Public Security Ministry website), and a total of 9 times from 1997-2004 (Library of Parliament). The registry of 7,000,000 firearms did not prevent these deaths. Given the extraordinarily low rate of misuse of some 7,000,000 registered firearms, it is unreasonable to believe that maintaining a registry of long guns could have any effect on spousal homicide rates. Moreover, the vast majority of violent domestic assaults are preceded by a lengthy, police recorded history, effectively denying abusers a firearms license. This should address their access to legally acquired guns.

On an average day, women’s shelters referred 221 women and 112 children elsewhere due to lack of funding. Clearly, there are better uses for the money than registering duck guns.

Myth #6: The registry helps track stolen guns and forces firearms owners to be more responsible in storing their firearms. Over 50% of firearms used in crime are stolen from gun owners
Past Department of Justice studies found that among homicides where details were available, 84% of the firearms used in the commission of the crimes are unregistered and 74.9% are illegal guns smuggled into Canada, not the 50% some claim. Recently, Canada’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team reported that 94% of crime guns were illegally imported into Canada. Vancouver Police report 97% of seized firearms are smuggled. Other government sources show between 9 and 16% of crime firearms originate in Canada. That figure is speculative as the vast majority of firearms used in crime are never recovered and most recovered guns cannot be identified as the serial numbers are removed.

Myth #7: The information on the registry database is secure and cannot be accessed by the criminal element.
There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003, 121 of which are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a “shopping list” for thieves.

Myth #8: The money has already been spent to set up the registry. It is foolish to dismantle it now.
The gun registry is by no means complete. Only 7 million of the 16.5 million guns that are in Canada (according to government import and export records) are registered. More than 300,000 owners of previously registered handguns still don’t have a firearms licence, more than 400,000 firearm licence holders still haven’t registered a gun and more than 300,000 owners of a registered handgun still have to re-register 548,254 handguns ( Canadian Firearms Registry). Based upon precedent, it will cost another billion dollars to complete the registry.

Myth #9: Rifles and shotguns are the weapon of choice for criminals and are the most used firearms in crime.
Where firearms were used in a violent crime, 71.2% involved handguns (but it is estimated that over 1/3 involve replicas or air guns), only 9% involved rifles or shotguns (of which 2.1% were registered) and 6.5% involved sawed off rifles or shotguns (already prohibited).

Myth #10: The tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, by the hand of a criminal with a rifle proves the need for the long gun registry.
The registry’s monumental failure to prevent the tragic deaths of these police officers underscores the folly of registering the firearms of the law abiding. The criminal who committed these crimes was in illegal possession of firearm, despite the presence of the registry. These events prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the ineffective uselessness of the long gun registry in protecting our society.

At Last

2009-02-12T06:46:00.000-08:00

At last there is movement on Parliament Hill, Yorkton Melville MP Gary Breitkreuz has introduce a Private Members Bill to end the multi billion dollar waste of money Known as the Long Gun Registry. Apart from ending the registry for rifles and shotguns it has some other cost saving measures that will streamline things without sacfrificing public safety. I see the move a step in the right direction, I will not be dancing a jig until all of the Firearms Act is repealed. There is no need nor call for these draconian measures introduced by the Chretien government. Law abiding citizens were not ever the problem. However they were made scapegoats. It was Kim the Pink who first brought in a stiffening of then current laws. But he illconcieved measures were quickly turned into political hay by the Liberal Party of Canada. There new law that they planned would make Ms Campbell look weak and worthless. it was to cost a "few million dollars" 2 billion in counting and the liberals governments making some of the costs "Cabinet Secrets" we the tax payers will or may never know the true cost of this pie in the sky idea known as the Firearms Act. All this money spent with the registry not helping to solve nor prevent a single crime. Indeed no in fact it has encouraged criminals enboldened them to commit crimes in broad day light. Car jackings home invasions being the new crimes that are in "vogue". Why one might ask? The short answer is, The Liberal Government gave every street thug a guarantee that we are disarmed and defenceless.

From a Tactical stand point if you are going to commit a crime are you going to pick a target that is able to fend you off or are you going to pick "soft target" that is easy pickins? The law as it is written makes our streets and homes one big Gun Free Zone. The storage regulations take care of your home since you can not keep a firearm loaded at the ready. The law has done two things it has told every theif and thug that you and your family cannot counter an attack effectively. Even if the perps are only armed with baseball bats numbers counter strength. On the streets they now no that no one is armed since concealed carry is non existent in Canada becuase the law allowing it requires an Authorization to Carry permit (ATC). The second thing the law has done is create a thriving black market on the streets. In Ontario there is a requirement that when a firearms owner buys ammunition the strore must keep record of that. with you name and address and type of firearm and its type of ammunition. No law is on the books about the security of these records..The Government has provided the criminals of our Province with an up to date catalogue. This of Course is always done in the name of "Public Safety" do you feel safer now knowing that the bad guys have the ability to find guns?

If it hadn't been reported I would not have believed it!

2009-02-12T06:29:00.000-08:00

In case anyone is not up to speed about Britain and some of the silliness that has transpired over the past few years since the Labour party has been running the show. The below article kinda sums it up nicely. England a once proud and sensible place has taken a turn for the silly. Prince Harry had to undergo sensitivity training for comments he made while he was on active duty in Afghanistan. On a more serious note a shop keeper and his friend fended off an armed robber. The shop keeper ended up charged with assault. To his discredit instead of defending himself in court he plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid prison time. The Crown and the Judge agreeing painted him as being no different than the hooligan that tried to rob him. Stuff like this is stupifyingly amazing. It appears that defending your property is now a crime in England. One wonders what has gotten into the water supply there.... I would be laughing if this were a Monty Python sketch but sadly it's not. More is the pity our Great Nation of Canada is not all that far behind them.

England in the Words of Monty Python "THIS HAS BECOME SILLY"

2009-02-12T06:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135179/Armed-police-arrest-man-playfully-pointing-toy-ray-gun-baby.html

Armed police arrest man for 'playfully pointing toy ray-gun at baby'

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:20 PM on 03rd February 2009

Police scrambled eight patrol cars filled with armed officers after a man in his 50s pointed a toy ray-gun at a baby and said 'Pow, Pow'.

The man, who has not yet been named, was arrested earlier today after he approached the baby and its mother with a 'silver ray-gun' which lights up and makes a buzzing noise when the trigger is pulled.

Onlookers in Hove, East Sussex, were astonished when the police cars sped to the scene to apprehend the man.Alison Edmonds, 23, said that she saw the man - who is not believed to be related to the baby and mother - approach the pram holding the toy gun, before jokingly saying 'Pow, pow' while pressing the trigger repeatedly.

The mother of the child then called police, who sent an armed response team to find and arrest the man, who was waiting for a bus less than a few hundred yards away.

Miss Edwards said: 'It was unbelievable. All he did was try to make the child laugh, but the mum decided to call the police and obviously told them a man with a gun had threatened her and her baby.

'What happened next was truly astonishing. I've never seen anything like it. These eight cars screamed to a halt and surrounded the poor man at the bus stop.

'They were fully kitted out with machine guns, rifles and everything.

'The man didn't know what was happening. All he was trying to do was make the baby crack a smile.'

Police seized the man's toy ray-gun and arrested him on suspicion of possessing an imitation firearm in a public place.

When Seconds Count

2009-02-06T22:08:00.000-08:00

abc News has released an investigative report on "active shooters" or mass murder(ers)
The Freedom Pages own Mr Kilroi has produced a video based on theirs. While I am a Canadian and though you can count on one hand the number of mass killings we have had, Gharbi still being the worst so far. The United States has had more than their share, this has given them the unique ability to study them. They have come up with some shocking news. Gun Free Zones actually might invite spree killers. But was is even more shocking they found that the "active shooter" self destructs when confronted by anyone who is armed. Thus ending their spree and limiting their damage.

B.C. Green Party: "Imagine Canadian Cities Without Guns

2009-02-02T04:49:00.000-08:00

PUBLICATION: The Province
DATE: 2009.01.30
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A8
COLUMN: Jon Ferry
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Damian Kettlewell, deputy leader of the B.C. Green Party, has started an urban anti-firearms campaign. ;
BYLINE: Jon Ferry
SOURCE: The Province

Restricting guns won't work; I don't see how limits will make public safer

As my mother always said, be sure to eat your greens. And I must say I haven't always agreed with her. In fact, most greens I've met have always seemed a little hard to digest. They're the kind of folks who believe cow farts help cause climate change. They also appear bent on turning Vancouver into a gun-free city, as well as a nuclear-free one.

Gun-free city? Yes, that's the plan of B.C. Green Party deputy leader Damian Kettlewell, 37, who tells me he hates guns, hates what they stand for and doesn't understand why people need them, especially in a modern, urban, cosmopolitan city like Vancouver. "Like how does it make a community better?" Kettlewell asks. "I understand that the police need guns and the army needs guns -- but citizens, why do they need guns?"

Well, to go target-shooting, hunting or to defend their property was my immediate thought. But then I don't hate guns, even though my brother-in-law killed himself with one. I don't hate them any more than I hate butcher knives. I just hate the sickos who use them in a bad way.

Now, I should explain here that Kettlewell, a Kits Point resident running in the new Vancouver-False Creek riding in the May provincial election, is not talking of an outright Vancouver city firearms ban.

Hunters could own guns. They'd just have to store them at a gun club and sign them out when they wanted to use them, with a plan of their intended activities -- as in "I'm going to Prince George to go hunting."

Kettlewell, a Burnaby pub operator, started his anti-firearms campaign on Facebook ("Imagine Canadian Cities Without Guns") two weeks ago. He ramped it up Wednesday on CKNW's Christy Clark Show.

So far, he says, the response has been overwhelmingly positive -- from people like my own boss, Province editor-in-chief Wayne Moriarty, who also doesn't see why anybody in an urban setting needs a gun.

Why is Kettlewell suggesting this now? Well, he believes that, if a no-guns-at-home law had been in place last year, his buddy Ben Banky, gunned down tragically at a company Christmas party, might still be alive today. And I sympathize with him for his terrible loss.

But as retired Simon Fraser University professor and firearms expert Gary Mauser points out, storing a number of weapons in one location is risky in its own right. "Gun clubs, because of noise regulations, have to be away from other houses, so they're a perfectly vulnerable target," he says. "Having a large set of guns being available for theft strikes me as a very impractical idea. It wouldn't help public safety."

Mauser, in fact, thinks the greens are paranoid about guns, as are many urban Canadians. Most rural folks grew up with firearms and are comfortable with them. I agree with him. Sure, allowing people to have guns on their own property can be dangerous. But so can letting them have cars, motorcycles, horses . . . and cows. Should we also ban them?

jferry@theprovince.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can imagine Canadian cities without guns, In fact the day that happens is the day I become an agoraphobic living in a bunker. The streets will not be safe to walk anytime of day. Every thug an n'rr do well will have the Governments guarantee we are all disarmed and defenceless. What I can't imagine is the Canada that would enact and enable such legislation. What I can't imagine is that "WE THE PEOPLE" would swallow such baloney that removing guns from law abiding citizens is a good idea. That it would make the streets safe. Some things in life are just truism, like it or not it is just the way humans are wired. The words "An armed society is a polite society" happens to fall into that category. Bullies come in different shapes sizes and guises. They all bank on the fact that they can intimidate or cajole people with no worries because it comes down to this "What are you going to do about it?". Consider the proposition that if we all carried arms we would all be equal. It would not matter if we were experts in martial arts or near sighted grannies WE WOULD NOT BE VICTIMS of the strong.

I also take issue with people and organizations that keep peddling this idea. Not one of them has said "We are willing to put our money where our mouths are, and indemnify ourselves and guarantee the publics' safety." No of course not why would they? They can't see past their agenda. The belief that only Police and the Military need guns is a cop out after all if the "People" are disarmed why do the police need guns? AHHH..is it to protect us from the thugs and n'rr do wells that did not give up their guns? Which exposes the flaw of their plan, the truth is Canadian Cities will never be gun free. These people would only make the streets safe for criminals.

The founder of this face book page is a PUB owner. He sells slow death in a glass every day. if someone where looking to take his livelihood away viz an "Alcohol Free" Canada he would be leading the pack to stop this.

Is it an infringement of Privacy Rights?

2009-01-28T09:31:00.000-08:00

Is it an infringement of Privacy Rights? I ask this because while researching the subject of my videos on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA54KVNqFvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3tIPW4GlcM I discovered many spree killers just didn't drop from the sky.
In fact they were either diagnosed or treated for certain mental health problems. I would suggest that perhaps many tragedies could have been avoided by placing a note in a file that could be accessed by authorities. While I am ardent in my belief that there ought to be an unfettered right to own arms by law abiding citizens where does one draw a line? Would it be an invasion of privacy to have such information in a data base? I am not opposed to background checks where an individual is proved to be indeed law abiding before they purchase arms. Why not "Mentally fit"? say for instance they have a diagnosed personality disorder and a note comes up when their backgrounds are checked and the shop keep says no sale. Would it not also be fair for them to get a certificate from their doctor saying yae or nae. Of course I can see the room for abuse of this by certain people who have an agenda like the social re-engineering of society basically saying no one is mentally fit to own arms. I can also see that some people would just not see a mental health professional for their troubles for fear of being labelled. Sadly the governments of the past and present have used a simple solution to very complex problems.. "The Firearms Act" which has made it a criminal act to possess a firearm without a licence. There problem solved. right? Indeed, If this were true then Kimveer Gill would have not been able to obtain a firearm to carry out his crimes. He was also known by the mental health professionals yet no one seen fit to even say "Hey watch this guy". No instead the agenda is disarm everyone it's safer.

"Polytechnique" A new film soon to be released

2009-01-27T11:34:00.000-08:00

I am old enough to remember this day, I watched the news reports with horror. Up until this day I thought it never happened in Canada, we are such a peaceful people. When we get angry we write letters to the editor. I was even more amazed at the reaction of the Government of Kim Campbell.
"Gun Control" I didn't think it would ever happen in Canada. What appeared reasonable at the time soon turned into an absolute obscenity. However this is not the reason for this post. This post is to inform those not old enough to remember or perhaps were not born yet.

I produced these video my self. and can be found on youtube.

Over To The Dark Side

2009-01-16T07:27:00.001-08:00

PETA and Terrorism

I wonder how many celebrity talking heads are aware of their activities? I wonder how many ordinary citizens are aware?

PETA is not what it appears to be.

The Right to Keep Arms In Our Defence

2009-01-14T08:53:00.000-08:00

I am a rights activist, therefore, I can't leave this topic alone. Every day we read in our News outlets about a "Gun Crime' of one type or another. It is followed by the usual hand wringing editorials and Calls for a ban on this type of firearm or another. With the usual "No one needs" this or that type of firearm. "They are no use for anything but killing people". Followed by editorial letters saying that guns are also used for other things. These statements are indeed both true. However as a law abiding citizen with no inclination to commit crimes of any sort must take issue with people wishing to remove an ancient Right because someone fancies themselves as a "bad ass gansta". The trouble with the "Ban Nutz " and gun control advocates is they fail to realize that on balance there are far more guns in the hands of people like myself than there are criminals. The mainstream media likes to sell papers and journalist love to have their columns read by we little people. So they use "Eye catching" words. Which will elicit a emotional response with their readers. The usual response is agreement with their point of view. Both the media and gun control camps would like to think that a simple solution is all that is needed to solve the gun crime problem. In our society when has a simple solution ever solved a problem? The chief ingredient of Gun Control is compliance with the law. In Canada we have some of the world's most restrictive gun laws but yet criminals continue to break the law and use guns to commit their crimes.

I think you might agree that every human being has a right to life. That every one has the right not to be gun downed in the streets for the fruits of their labours. I think you would also agree that every woman has to the right to walk the streets safely without being set upon by a rapist and equally has a right to her life and her virtue. Even a sex trade worker has a right to this. We in Canada inherit viz a viz our English colonial roots the ancient right to defend ourselves. Not only that we have long held the right to the means in order to do so, and not just any means but the most effective means.

This is the most basic human right we have! If you were to remove yourself from civil society and place yourself in the wild you would have to rely upon your survival instincts and use that fine intellect that humans possess in order to do that very thing. Nature has given every creature that creeps, crawls, slithers, or walks upon this great earth the ability to defend itself. Whether it is great speed or sharp teeth, venom, or horns, heck even plants have defences. When you consider that we frail humans who have to cover our skins with skins for protection and do not have built in defences like speed or big sharp teeth or do we? Indeed we do have a built in defence, it is this enormous brain we have. Guile, intellect and reason are our built in defences. We learnt to make tools for defence as well as offence. Whether it was a rock or pointy stick we fashioned the means to defend ourselves. In fact we became so adept at it we gave up eating left overs from other prey animals and began doing our own preying.

This keen intellect is also our greatest curse because along with it came the ability to reason. With that came politicians. In the words of Jimmy Cliff ("Politics" poli means people and "tics" are parasites. "the People's Tics". ) We as an animal are the only politicians on the planet, every other species does what it does and nobody gets excited about it. Humans on the other hand get excited when we exercise our intellects and dain not to be prey of other human predators.

We as a species have fashioned tools that are extraordinary at both defence and offence. Offence being the ability to put food on our tables. Defence being that we can keep others from taking both life and property from us. There is not a Government on the face of the earth that has the right to say what I or you may use to defend ourselves. Yet they do try, and many of my fellow humans have decided that this is ok. As the Bible puts it, "And man shall beat his swords into plough shears and their spears into pruning hooks" But what it fails to say is that those that did end up ploughing and pruning for those that did not. Or in our case public protection is best left to the professionals "Police" and " soldiers".

Have you ever said to yourself " There is never a cop around when you need one.", Why would your safety be left to those that are never around when they are needed most?

It really doesn't matter what your neighbour has in his home, whether it is a single shot 22 or Barret 50 cal BMG. As long as he never uses it to harm you why would you care? You don't care what they and their significant other get up to on a Saturday night when they are alone behind closed doors so why would care what means of defending their home and family they have? Why can't we take the the approach we take with with everything else, the "If it doesn't affect me." attitude that Canadians are famous for.

The truth about gun control is quite simple. It only regulates the people you need to worry the least about and leaves the ones that you need to worry about alone. Gun Control gives, every thug and n'rr do well a government guarantee that their victims are unarmed and defenceless. Which in the terms of the natural world makes them the apex predator and the fittest to survive.

2009-01-13T21:34:00.000-08:00

Ivison: Ontario is becoming an increasingly Orwellian province

John Ivison, National Post Published: Friday, January 09, 2009

Jana Chytilova for National Post

It seems positively Orwellian that a private conversation in a bar can be taken down surreptitiously by a third party and used as evidence in a quasi-judicial hearing -- but that is the reality of life in a province that is under increasingly intrusive surveillance.

Readers with long memories may remember that a group of journalists was booted unceremoniously from the popular downtown Ottawa watering hole D'Arcy McGee's on a quiet Monday night last February. There was no warning, no incident -- just no more beer.

It turned out a liquor inspector working for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had satisfied himself that the revellers were intoxicated and told the bar's manager that he was filing a report that would put D'Arcy's liquor license in jeopardy -- hence the beer yanked from the hot, clammy hand of one of my bemused colleagues.

The report was filed in the fall and D'Arcy's decided to contest its findings. As the bar's manager, Kevin Ferby, told me at the time, he felt the inspector was "overzealous" and had "overreacted". "The law is there to protect extremes and there were no extremes here," he said.

I was called as a witness this week at a hearing in front of two members of the board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission -- and the experience was surreal. The AGCO is a unique organization, in that it decides who gets a liquor license, then enforces their operation through liquor inspectors. If the organization decides to proceed with charges, the AGCO appoints legal counsel and the case is heard by two AGCO board members. Theoretically, each stage of the process is independent of the other, though defendents say the cards are often stacked against them.

It gets worse -- unlike a criminal court, where the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high evidentiary standard, at an AGCO hearing, the burden of proof is much lower -- on the balance of probability -- as is an evidentiary standard that allows the use of hearsay.

In the D'Arcy's case, the prosecuting lawyer cited the Post article, in which I had described members of our band as being "moist and garrulous" , if not quite "tired and emotional", as an admission that we were all intoxicated -- which is an offence under the Liquor License Act. I conceded that we were in high spirits but rejected the notion of intoxication, which according to the Ministry of Government Services' own server training program means the customer is speaking too loudly, slurring, sweating and losing balance.

"You had to repeat yourself several times, did you not?" the lawyer asked.

"Yes but that happens all the time. You might have noticed I have the hint of an accent," I replied, in my strongest west Scotland brogue.

By this time things had proceeded from farce, as the lawyer flailed away in her attempts to make me admit we were all full of loudmouth soup, or something more sinister.

"As regards the subject of your conversation, is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?" the lawyer asked.

"Excuse me," I replied, taken aback.

"Is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?"

"I have no idea."

"Is it possible?"

"I have no idea. Is this relevant?" I asked.

"Your job here is to answer the questions. I will do the asking," she said, curtly.

So there you have it. It seems that not only was a public servant sitting in the shadows studying us, he was also eavesdropping on our conversation, so that he could include its contents in a report that could become a public document once the board members pronounce on whether D'Arcy's was in breach of its licence.

I have no idea whether I am identified by name or the precise nature of the allegation -- I wasn't allowed to listen to the inspector's testimony.

What is clear is that Ontario's beer police are running amok -- the number of licence suspensions has increased more than 60% in the province over the course of this decade. I was inundated with anecdotes to this effect from readers after the last article. Take the case of the Ottawa bar where a server refused a clearly inebriated customer, only for an inspector to pop up and tell her the man was now her responsibility and she was obliged to either escort him home or sober him up with a free meal.

Bad enough that a public employee, who is apparently unaccountable to the people, can temporarily close down a wealth-creating private business like D'Arcy's, which employs 75 people, on the extremely subjective basis that a couple of 40-something suits "appeared to be intoxicated". Much worse that government is encroaching on the rights of the individual to the extent that a supposedly private conversation becomes a matter of public record. The Ministry of Truth would have approved.

Well there you go ..a few journalists and some beer and whamo ,,, the sad truth is this is what has happened in this province. Never fear Nanny will get to in the end. Welcome to Mr McGuinty's Ontario. Where individual rights mean nothing. The fortunate part is this wee Beer commiczar decided to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Now that he personaly has tasted the sting of the Government, maybe now he will take notice that his individual rights have been thrown under the bus for the " Greater Good ". Though his article is a good start but it is a far cry from becoming the voice of Freedom. If he thinks his privacy has been invaded? He ought to try being a Firearms owner then you become familiar with true statism at its worst.

Speak Up

2009-01-09T07:45:00.000-08:00

take a few moments to do this survey. and let your government know what you think is important.
special interest groups get to be heard why can't WE as citizens

http://www.rallyforcanada.ca/fivequestions.php

Happy New Year

2009-01-06T08:35:00.000-08:00

I hope everyone had a happy holiday. Christmas is such a fun holiday when there are small children just discovering the magic of the season. I know my nephew's were wired for sound, driving their parents nuts with their excitement.

With the new year comes great hope, at least I hope it does. Though out in the real world things look grim at this point. Our brave leader in Ontario still hasn't clued into how an economy works yet and still isn't showing any signs of the "lights" going on in his head. Mr McGuinty is still looking at the tax payer as some sort of domestic farm animal to be milked. That Government spending fuels the economy and not spending on the part of consumers.

In order for consumers to be able to spend money and drive our economy they need jobs, which will provide them with money. It is not the business of Government to directly provide these jobs nor is it the business of Government to drive jobs away from our Province. In effect this is what the McGuinty Government is doing. Ontario has the highest taxes next to Quebec. This includes Corporate taxes. Let's face it folks companies are not in the business of providing jobs, however they are in the business of generating profits. Employees are a cost of business not necessarily the net end result. While there are many factors in why a business locates in one place over another, one of the deciding factors is can it make a profit is the single deciding factor. If wages and taxes eat up a bottom line the only thing a company can do to salvage its bottom line is reduce wages. Only because it can't reduce the taxes, among other uncontrollable expenses. It always falls onto the shoulders of the Workers to bear the brunt of this reality.

What can McGuinty do? The short answer is Cut Taxes. And I do mean Cut taxes severely across the board. The corporations should not be the only beneficiaries of a tax cuts ordinary people should too. If we go into a deficit because of tax cuts so be it. It is better to go into deficit that way than by expanding the Governments spending and still squeezing the tax payers. The Government will then have to make tough decisions on the streamlining of services.
A good start would be repealing useless laws. Laws must be enforced and all that requires money. Another idea would be the reducing of the Provincial Cabinet the number of highly paid Ministers and the number of departments. Eliminate commissions ,Like the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Another would be to scrap the Human Rights Commission.

There are many ways in which the Government may save money they just have to have the will. With over regulation comes big bureaucracy which takes big $$$$ to operate.
Corporations downsize all the time in hard times why can't our governments?

True Liberalism

2008-12-23T18:33:00.000-08:00

I do go on ad nauseum about rights only because "RIGHTS" are the only thing worth fighting for. I also become quite animated when someone begins to go on about "Women's Rights" or "Gay Rights", or any Groups rights period end of sentence. Only because they are utter "nonsense" . Grand works of fiction, created to divide people and weaken them rather than strengthen them. Divide and conquer is another name for it. Divy up the entire population into small groups give them clever labels then throw them crumbs and watch them fight over them.

Only individual people have rights only individuals can exercise their rights. If I were to put this in collectivist terms then it would be like this "We the People have rights" And "We the People shall decide what is right for ourselves" That is about as collective as I get.

I put it to you, Are we not all humans? Are we not born equal in every way? When did we become different from one another? Like or not we are all humans and we all were born equal. Our gender is irrelevant, who we fall in love with is irrelevant. The immutable fact remains the same we have two legs, two arms, one head, no tail, no fur and little hair coverage. Traits which define us as members of the human species. We come in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colours. We bear our offspring live and require a long growth period for our brains to mature. Unlike our other mammalian relatives. That said, it is therefor not unreasonable to say that we are equal with the same rights. We are all members of the human family, however this is not good enough for some.

In our modern times, that being the last 500 years a philosophy was developed and defined "liberalism" The belief that the individual is the single most important part of a society and that an individual rights supersedes that of the "State" and most importantly in the beginning the "Church". The right to think and believe as one wished to, the right to say what one wished to but importantly the right to defend these beliefs. As it was put by Voltaire "Although I disagree with what you say, you have a right to say it. I will defend your right even unto death. " To be truly liberal is to respect and defend the rights of your fellow man, even when you might disagree with them. The flaw of true liberalism is that because one tries to understand both sides of an argument it lends itself to brain paralysis and indecision when it comes to action. Which in our times has left it to so called "Progressive Thinking" or the accepting of new ideas even though these ideas fly in the face of the core belief of true liberalism.

Which has lead to the rise of "group" or "collective" rights. Which as stated is a misnomer. In truth groups can only achieve special status or privilege. In this state groups get set apart from society as a whole there by ghettoizing them. The rift in society is further exacerbated by the social backlash to to the special treatment of a particular group which gives cause for further special treatment viz a viz laws protecting their "special place" within society at large. We all have heard the term "politically correct" or "PC" it is not a new concept but what is politically correct has changed over time. To be politically correct in our time has become to embrace every new hair brained idea like neutering our language or self censorship. It also has come to mean to embrace ideas that we don't necessarily agree with but it is the fashion.

These are the types of ideas that have infected modern liberalism. Thus striking down the heart of the philosophy of liberalism the autonomy of the individual thought and the sanctity of individual rights. You know the world has become a topsy turvy place when champions of individual rights are labelled as "Right wing" lunatics by the champions of collective rights. These said same champions were once champions for the little guy in a bygone age but now wish to see the little guy thrown under the bus to favour the special interests of groups. The sad reality of it is the little guy is queing up unwittingly for the bus

McGuinty’s shortsighted driving restrictions

2008-12-23T17:14:00.000-08:00

Column: McGuinty’s shortsighted driving restrictions unfair to families, young drivers

Tim Hudak, MPP From the Park Bench

It has been about a month since Dalton McGuinty announced his plan to impose new restrictions on young drivers in Ontario, and yet the public criticism of his shortsighted plan continues to pick up speed across the province.

The most contentious part of the McGuinty government’s Bill 126 – the Road Safety Act – has been a proposed restriction on drivers 19 years or younger that prohibits them from having more than one passenger (aside from a member of the immediate family) that is 19 years or younger in the car with them at all times.

The public outcry against this ill-conceived idea has stretched from the floor of the Ontario Legislature to the World Wide Web where more than 125,000 young people and parents have joined a group on the social networking site Facebook in protest.

It requires very little thought to understand why this legislation is out of touch with the lives of many families in Niagara and Hamilton. From the emails I have received on this subject to the comments posted on my Facebook page, I have heard plenty of examples to prove the point. Some of my favourites are:

• A 19 year old can qualify for a commercial pilot's licence and fly a plane full of teenage passengers, but under Bill 126 she is forbidden from driving more than one of them to the airport;

• A young soldier could drive an entire platoon in an armoured tank in Afghanistan but would be prevented from driving on Ontario roads with two 19-year-old passengers;

• A 19-year-old Brock University student or high school graduate with a full-time job can’t carpool to school or work with others his own age without breaking the law;

Another contentious part of Bill 126 unjustly punishes drivers under 22 years of age with 30 day to 90 day licence suspensions for minor infractions, such as rolling through a stop sign or exceeding the speed limit by 10 km, even for a first offence.

Instead of consuming the Legislature in debate on how many 19-year-old passengers should ride in a car together, Ontario families want a Premier who tackles the tough issues like the economy and violent crime and leaves the parenting up to the parents of Ontario.

I am circulating a petition through my Beamsville office (4961 King Street E, Unit M1) that calls on Premier McGuinty to scrap this ill-advised plan. To sign your name or obtain copies of the petition to circulate in your neighbourhood or school, come by the office during regular business hours, call 905-563-1755 or email timhudak@niagara.net.

Hudak Speaks At Rally for Canada

2008-12-23T17:11:00.001-08:00

A rally in support of the Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the will of Canadian voters was held at Queen’s Park in Toronto on Dec. 6.
About one thousand Ontario residents came out to express their opposition to the Dion-led separatist coalition and to support respect for the democratically elected federal government. A number of prominent conservatives addressed the crowd, including Ontario PC Party Leader John Tory, St. Catharines MP Rick Dykstra, Thornhill MP Peter Kent and Ontario PC Finance Critic Tim Hudak.

The following is Tim Hudak’s speech from the rally:

I want to thank Matt O'Brien, Ed Wooley and Utsav Sanduja - three dedicated Canadians - for their extraordinary grassroots efforts to organize this rally today.

Special greetings also to my friends and neighbours from Niagara and Hamilton who made the trek up the QEW this morning to join us here at Queen's Park.

And thank you to all of you who have taken time away from family, from work, from your businesses to gather on this cold December day.

But we do this for a very important and admirable purpose: because we fundamentally believe - particularly during these challenging economic times - that the will of the people expressed on Election Day must be respected

And we believe that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Government have been given a clear mandate to take Canada forward.

And Stephane Dion? The man who took his Liberal Party of Canada to its poorest showing in its history?

Stephane Dion cannot even run his own Party and - as we saw on Monday night - he cannot even manage a cheap camcorder.

And he wants to run our country?

It gets worse!

Get this: Dion wants Bob Rae to develop the Coalition Economic Plan.

All of us in Ontario have sadly seen that movie before: record unemployment, more people on welfare than the total population of Newfoundland, jobs fleeing our Province.

The Buffalo Chamber of Commerce named Bob Rae their Businessman of the Year fot all the jobs he chased across the border.

The concept of Prime Minister Dion is frightening enough. Prime Minister Dion at the head of a coalition using Bob Rae's so-called Economic Plan backed by the Bloc Quebecois is unconscionable.

It is bad news for hard pressed Ontario families and it is dangerous for struggling Ontario businesses.

And have you heard the latest from the Coalition?

They have suggested Dion may be replaced by John McCallum or Ralph Goodale at the head of the separatist coalition.

Or they have suggested that if only could explain to Canadians better what the coalition would mean for Canada.

My friends, you can put lipstick on the coalition but Canadian voters are not about to pucker up!

It is time to take this country forward. Let's respect the will of the people and allow Stephen Harper's duly elected Conservative Government take us from tough times today to a more prosperous tomorrow.

Thank you for being here to rally for democracy.

Thank you for being here to stand up for Canada.

When it comes to Property Assessments,

2008-12-23T17:01:00.000-08:00

From Tim Hudak MPP Niagara West-Glanbrook

"If it's broke, don't fix it"; McGuinty Coins New Expression in Response to Property Assessment Concerns

Posted 12/18/2008 - 18:27

Tim Hudak, Ontario PC Finance Critic, called on Dalton McGuinty today to fix his broken property assessment scheme following an admission from Premier himself that this year’s assessments were “unrealistic”.

"Dalton McGuinty's bizarre comments show how out of touch he has become with what Ontario families are going through in today's economic climate," Hudak said. "Taxpayers are seeing their property assessments skyrocket while the value of their homes are falling."

This year’s property assessments were based on Jan. 1, 2008 values – the height of a hot housing market. By the time the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) mailed out new assessment notices this fall, housing prices across the province had already dropped dramatically.

The average assessment in the City of Toronto increased by 21.6 per cent this year. Some Toronto neighbourhoods saw even larger increases, such as 28 per cent in Parkdale-High Park, 32 per cent in Trinity-Spadina and 33 per cent in Danforth. The average housing price in Toronto has already dropped by 5.7 per cent or $21,431 below January 2008 values.

Other examples include: rightclick to view image

Worse still, under the new McGuinty property assessment scheme, property owners have no hope of relief from the resultant tax increases until the next assessment in 2012.

“If these assessments are wrong, then the Premier has a duty to fix them,” Hudak said. “Otherwise too many Ontario families and seniors will be paying higher property taxes for at least four years when they shouldn't be.”

Hudak said McGuinty should act immediately and restore annual assessments so they properly reflect market conditions and can’t be allowed to get out of whack.

Also, any assessment increases from the 2008 assessment should be capped at an inflationary value to protect taxpayers and any decreases in assessment should be fully reflected.

http://www.timhudakmpp.com/newsroom/if-its-broke-dont-fix-it-mcguinty-coins-new-expression-response-property-assessment-concern