Ontario seeks to ban handguns: people don't "need" them


PDA






Drizzt
February 10, 2006, 01:54 AM
Ontario seeks to ban handguns: people don't "need" them
By Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor,
Wednesday, February 8, 2006

During the recent federal election campaign, Liberal leader Paul Martin breezed into a violent neighbourhood in Toronto, announced a proposed ban on handguns and promptly left. Since handguns are virtually banned anyway, it was nothing more than empty election rhetoric. There were so many exceptions to the "total ban" that it would not have changed the number of guns in the hands of criminals one bit.

Even the federal Liberals, especially after a few drinks, admitted that the only purpose in announcing the handgun ban was to provoke a reaction from the Conservatives that would make them appear to be right wing gun totin’ yahoos. Stephen Harper, who was sworn in as Canada’s 22nd prime minister on Monday, didn’t bite.

Now, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has announced that he will seek authority to ban the ownership of handguns by collectors. And he seems to be serious. This announcement comes in the wake of two high profile break ins into the homes of Toronto area gun collectors.

Mike Hargreaves had his home broken into and 35 guns stolen while he was vacationing in Florida. The Toronto Police Force under the leadership of Chief Bill Blair, who puts political correctness and group hugs above solving violent crime, have charged Hargreaves with unsafe storage of a firearm under the Criminal Code. If Hargreaves ever returns from the sunny south it should be an interesting trial; he had stored his guns in a 900+ pound concrete and steel safe that took the thieves some time to pry open. But of course, the crime is his fault.

The day prior to Bryant’s announcement, a 67-year-old gun collector returned home from a six-week stay in hospital to find his home had been broken into and his 40 firearms stolen. His weapons had been stored in a steel cabinet. At least he wasn’t charged with a criminal offence; not yet anyway.

The only exceptions according to Ontario’s AG will be for police, the military and Olympic sharpshooters. It’s easy to understand why police should allowed to possess firearms; how else are they going to be able to shoot black guys to the delight of the liberal media? And, of course the military needs guns so they can help the police when Prime Minister Harper sends them into cities to be pitted against Canadians like the Liberals have predicted that they would. But why are Olympic sharpshooters allowed to possess firearms when no other civilians are? And exactly how does a person get to be an Olympic "sharpshooter" without being able to own guns to acquire the skills to qualify for the Olympics? Michael, Michael, Michael-- you can’t become an Olympic caliber athlete on the whim of an idiot like you can become Attorney General of Ontario.

Had the announcement been made by Premier Dalton McGuinty we wouldn’t have to take it seriously. McGuinty rarely tells the truth and says, as former Premier Ernie Eves so eloquently put it, "whatever comes into his pointy little head". But Bryant has the reputation for actually doing what he says he is going to do, something of a rarity in his morally challenged government.

The present Ontario government is perhaps the worst in Canada in their quest to obtain nanny state nirvana. This is the same government that proposed but later gave up on, banning previously unfrozen sushi based upon some anecdotal evidence that it might have given a few people somewhere tummy aches.

What is really scary about Bryant’s not unexpected announcement are his reasons for the ban. Bryant is quoted as saying, "Nobody needs to have a handgun in their house, and nobody should because of the dangers caused even by safe storage of these weapons of human misery".

The criminals win another one. Rather than go after the bad guys, it is so much easier to go after law abiding citizens. Now we have a government that will decide what each of us "needs". Of course it’s not a question of "needs"; it’s a question of "rights". The criminals have and should have rights in an enlightened society. But the refusal to recognize the rights of law abiding citizens by having a government dictate what those citizens can have or not have is scary.

No one can purchase guns or ammunition without leaving a vast paper trail that can be stolen or bought by those who seek to steal guns. But tightening controls or going after the bad guys is too onerous a task for this government. It’s easier to go after those who comply with the laws; the ones who pay taxes to pay Bryant for taking away their property rights.

Hopefully, the new government in Ottawa will give short shrift to Bryant’s proposals. Even the old government wouldn’t have gone this far.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb020806.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Ontario seeks to ban handguns: people don't "need" them" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Manedwolf
February 10, 2006, 03:01 AM
And how did the crooks know that these collections existed? :scrutiny:

"Mike Hargreaves had his home broken into and 35 guns stolen while he was vacationing in Florida. The Toronto Police Force under the leadership of Chief Bill Blair, who puts political correctness and group hugs above solving violent crime, have charged Hargreaves with unsafe storage of a firearm under the Criminal Code. If Hargreaves ever returns from the sunny south it should be an interesting trial; he had stored his guns in a 900+ pound concrete and steel safe that took the thieves some time to pry open. But of course, the crime is his fault."

Hmmm. Doesn't Canada have a firearms REGISTRY? If so, I'd suspect that someone in the department is on the take. How would the criminals know this guy owned that many so as to spend all that time on a serious heist, unless...they had record of what he had from somewhere?

Lucky
February 10, 2006, 03:34 AM
It's irrelevant. If you stoop to argue against them, you have already lost. Their arguments are absurd, they laugh in the face of logic and sanity. You can't debate with that, they win legitimacy the instant you recognize them.

You know, I know, they know that criminals have guns, and always will. They just hate guns and gun owners, every bit of them. When they are honest they say openly, "Yes, banning X will not affect criminals, but it's a STEP." They do not care, absolutely do not care how many people are raped and murdered because their lobby took away handguns. They believe they are 'righteous' and that any casualties civilians suffer along the way are simply a price that must be paid. (incidentally, they use those same casualties, twist them around, and exploit the deaths to further their gun-confiscation agendas)

These people are heartless, ruthless, a-moral, power hungry, and they want to dominate other people, as a means and an end.

Time to write some more letters to editors.

If these sick bastards take over the most powerful province, then it's time to revisit the old 'Alberta firewall'...

Peet
February 10, 2006, 03:41 PM
And how did the crooks know that these collections existed? :scrutiny:
Don't forget the ammo logbook. You buy ammo and all your info (incl. home addy) are entered. Many shops leave it on the counter, and/or employees sell the info.:mad:

Been discussed on multiple blogs and maybe another thread on this board.

P.

Lucky
February 10, 2006, 04:06 PM
Here is the largest newspaper in Canada, the Toronto Star, with the reader's responses to the ban. Now, some of the opinions are only half agreeable, but the main thing is that they are against the ban. Only a brazen few are in favour of the ban. Even one post starts off, "While I agree with the ban..." and then moves into what would be a better solution.

Some of them are quite beyond hope, though, and I admit that they are a danger to everyone's freedom and security. (more than a bit ironic)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1139223803239

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20051208-011/page.asp
Here's a gun-control advocate and a gun-posession-should-not-be-a-crime-punisheable-by-more-jail-time-than-violent-robbery advocate.

" Liberal Leader Paul Martin’s plan to introduce a nationwide ban on handguns has received a mixed response, and while some anti-gun advocates like the idea, it’s left registered gun owners upset.

But those who both oppose and like Martin’s proposal did agree on some points. We posed the same five questions to Tony Bernardo, executive-director of the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, which is the political arm of the Canadian Shooting Sport Association, and Audette Shephard, the founder of U.M.O.V.E. (United Mothers Against Violence Everywhere). Here’s what they told Pulse24.com:

1. Do you think a handgun ban would reduce crime?

Bernardo: “No… nothing that they have done so far has reduced crime. Certainly banning drugs hasn’t reduced drug use… Criminals do what criminals do because they’re criminals.

Shephard: “I’m all for it, whether it will be effective is left to be seen, but I’m definitely for it.”

2. Do you consider this a band-aid solution to gun crime?

Shephard: “Yeah it is ... but it’s a step, you know I definitely believe it’s a band-aid solution because we needed a surgery. There’s a lot of other components that need to be put together that could never stand on its own."

Bernardo: “No. I would not even consider it even a band-aid. This is a smoke and mirrors election coming.”

3. Do you think gun amnesty/buyback programs are effective?

Bernardo: “The people who they’re doing this to don’t have their guns on the street, these are legitimate, lawful owners, not criminals.”

Shephard: “I think that’s mainly for those people who are legally allowed to have it ... but I don’t know about that, that’s not the ones that they need that program for. The ones that are on the street, they’ll never get those.”

4. What would you propose as a solution to the gun violence problem?

Shephard: “I think there are a number of things, but they have to go after the (gun) traffickers, those are the ones they need to target. If they are able to stop it coming from there, they’re further ahead. But as long as they just leave the traffickers alone, because they’re benefiting from the destruction of our kids. That’s my focus, the traffickers, and if they’re talking about stiffer sentencing for people who use (guns), than that should be doubled for the people who are trafficking them ...Even when they do the stiffer sentencing ... they don’t just warehouse people in jail they need to be able to rehabilitate them.”

Bernardo: “Increased police activity and increased sentences. It seems almost obvious to say that penalizing people who aren’t breaking the law isn’t going to affect people who are. If you want to affect the people who are you have to affect them in whatever way you can, and one of the ways we can affect them is stiffer enforcement of existing laws because most of the existing laws are pre-bargained away anyhow. Right now, the Criminal Code provides up to 40 years extra for using a firearm in an offence that’s virtually all plea-bargained out. They don’t even need to do anything, all they need to do is enforce what they’ve got. But for some reason, as per normal with the Liberal government, this is somehow the fault of law-abiding people.”

5. Who are you planning to vote for?

Bernardo: “That is a question that is a continuously moving target. But as of this morning, I mean, is there a choice? We firearms owners are about to have our lawfully-owned, legitimately required, safely stored, fully registered property seized by the government … it’s nothing more than a smoke and mirrors political trick to try and win an election and distract attention away from this … scandal. How do you think we feel? Personally, we’ve had to live through C-68 since 1995, we’ve been through months, years of consultation with the government while we were totally ignored. We feel raped, that’s the only way to describe it. Our country has victimized people who don’t break the law. This is a serious thing to us. Right now gun owners are the most persecuted minority in this country…We’ve had our backgrounds checked into, our employers informed about our personal things, we’re subjected to police inspections… this is really how people feel - frustrated, persecuted.”

6. How do you feel the government has handled this problem so far?

Shephard: “If they had started getting this vigilant about the violence four years ago, we would not be in this situation right now.”
"

Crosshair
February 10, 2006, 06:09 PM
Why don't they just make it illegal for criminals to have handguns.:rolleyes:

Lucky
February 10, 2006, 06:45 PM
Because THAT'S NOT THEIR GOAL! It's a principle that most gun-banners refuse to actually say. They don't care about crime victims, they are simply using their suffering to promote anti-gun rhetoric.

They are banning weapons for the oldest reason in the book - control. It is about control. It is about power. They are, in essence, raping us. And psychologists say that rape is not about the sex, but the control, the power. These people are quite literally 'getting off' by disarming everyone else.

And, iirc, rapists are the most likely offenders to re-offend. Does that sound like weapon-banning to you? Do they ban one thing, and then another, and continue to ban over and over and over again?

I kid you not, that's what this is about.

Look, this is logic:
"This debate over handguns is farcical. I nursed in a prison, and am familiar with the inmate approach to life. If anyone thinks banning guns will stop their use is out of sync with reality. Just look at the police raids and the type of guns they recover, never mind hand guns, but totally illegal weapons of all sorts. Has anyone with a gun pointing at them asked to see a permit?"
Diana Reid, Guelph, Feb. 8
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1139223803239

And here it is, from the horse's mouth:
Ontario Attorney General – and fellow Liberal – Michael Bryant, also welcomed the plan. "The right to bear handguns is not a Canadian value," he maintains.
http://www.pulse24.com/CityVoteCanada/index.asp?id=2026&mth=12&yr=2005&dy=8

Standing Wolf
February 10, 2006, 09:17 PM
If you stoop to argue against them, you have already lost. Their arguments are absurd, they laugh in the face of logic and sanity. You can't debate with that, they win legitimacy the instant you recognize them.

Well said!

Lucky
February 10, 2006, 09:37 PM
Let me re-post the first three Q's and A's by United Mothers Against Violence Everywhere(:barf: )

1. Do you think a handgun ban would reduce crime?
Shephard: “I’m all for it, whether it will be effective is left to be seen, but I’m definitely for it.”

2. Do you consider this a band-aid solution to gun crime?
Shephard: “Yeah it is ... but it’s a step, you know I definitely believe it’s a band-aid solution because we needed a surgery. There’s a lot of other components that need to be put together that could never stand on its own."

3. Do you think gun amnesty/buyback programs are effective?
Shephard: “I think that’s mainly for those people who are legally allowed to have it ... but I don’t know about that, that’s not the ones that they need that program for. The ones that are on the street, they’ll never get those.”

It doesn't make sense, she knows it doesn't make sense, she says it won't work, she says the programs do nothing to stop crime!!! And she's "all for it".

Either they are evil, sadistic torturous human beings, or they are mentally deficient or incapacitated in some way. I suspect a combination of the two is what drives the masterminds of this sick fraud.

Lupinus
February 10, 2006, 09:42 PM
people don't need stuffed green aliens caviar or paintings.

Guns are more useful then objects people don't need.

bigun15
February 10, 2006, 10:07 PM
The Toronto Police Force under the leadership of Chief Bill Blair, who puts political correctness and group hugs above solving violent crime

That made me smile.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ontario seeks to ban handguns: people don't "need" them" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!