Drizzt
Member
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
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
