Shootings in Montreal Lead to More Debate on Gun Control

With the shootings at Dawson College in Montreal this week, the debate is cropping up yet again about gun control in general and the merit of the Long Gun Registry specifically.

The Conservatives are set to table legislation that will essentially gut the Long Gun Registry. That legislation may now be in jeopardy or put on hold due to the reactionary nature of MPs, not to mention their willingness to pander to public opinion no matter how misplaced. This is unfortunate.

Why ‘misplaced’? Well, those who support the Long Gun Registry seem to think that events of this nature prove that the Long Gun Registry is needed. But when you ask the question ‘What did the Long Gun Registry do in this case?’ no one can say it prevented the incident. I’m no expert on firearms and I don’t know which ones Kimveer Gill had and how the Long Gun Registry treated them. I have read somewhere that Gill used an AK-47. I am sure that the AK-47 was restricted before the Long Gun Registry was put in place.

Either way, it is clear that he should not have had registered firearms (long or otherwise) and, given his disposition he would not have been qualified to own registered firearms of any kind. So, it stands to reason that the firearm Gill had were illegal.

For too many short-sighted urbanites, the Long Gun Registry is gun registry in Canada. Most fail to understand that there has been a handgun registry in place since the 1930’s.

The Long Gun Registry does not make us any safer. The Long Gun Registry does not prevent crime. The Long Gun Registry does not stop the smuggling of handguns or long guns.

The Long Gun Registry is a useless $2B make-work project. The money could have saved lives if spent in almost any other Government department.

Liberal Opposition to Lumber Deal No More Than Partisan Politics

So, the Liberals are going to vote against a softwood lumber deal that has the support of lumber producers and the non-Conservative governments of the three biggest lumber-producing provinces. Surprise, surprise.

Is it mere partisan politics or is it unrepentant contempt for the electorate? Well, lets look at the sloppy thinking at play.

First, Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal International Trade Critic suggests that a special aid package be put together to help the lumber industry adjust to the fallout from the deal. Wait a minute, the government is to put a programme in place that essentially would indicate some short-coming in the deal. Nice try.

LeBlanc then goes on to say that getting anything less than all of the tariffs paid would be a failure. This thinking goes a long way to explaining why the Liberals couldn’t negotiate a resolution to anything with the Americans. Is it ideal? No. But in any negotiation there is give and take.

The impasse was costing Canada’s economy each and every day yet LeBlanc and Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale both said that Canada should have waited for legal procedures to conclude. But that assumes that Canada had a iron-clad case and the means to recoup all damages. That’s a dubious assumption.

The most contemptuous implication comes from Goodale when he tells us that “it is obvious the Harper government has played hardball with Canadian softwood producers to get their support for the deal”. This implies that no one in their right mind would agree with a Conservative or a Conservative government. It’s a cheap shot and sadly typical. Its also a classic example of a more insidious facet of Liberalism in Canada. Here we see ‘truth’ to a Liberal audience delivered with vacuous statements.

Its clear to me that the Liberal position is nothing more than partisan politics aimed at covering its inability to resolve this issue while they formed the government. They gave the Americans no respect while they were in government and reaped what they sewed. I’ll go further to say that perhaps if they had had a civil relationship with the United States, this whole mess may have been avoided.

Our Mission in Afghanistan

Bill Carroll, a talk radio host from Toronto, (www.cfrb.com) appears on Global News most nights and comments briefly on one or two matters of interest. I find his comments insightful and direct. Every day, its a breath of fresh air to hear someone from Toronto talk who has such a grasp of logic.

His comment last night was in regards to the idea that Canada should cut and run from Afghanistan. He said that proponents of this idea are either political opportunists or cowards.

Bill Carroll is right.

Canada has traditions that have been forgotten by many. We fight for justice. We fight for peace. We do more than our share. We are not just peace keepers.

We do not cut and run. We do not negotiate with those who would threaten us. We do not coddle those who would gladly bring their tyranny and hatred and intolerance to our country.

Jack Layton suggests we do all that. Moreover, he suggests we act as peace keepers in this conflict as if we are somehow apart from all the conflict. I would argue that there is no peace to keep. And I would further argue that the only peace we can achieve with an enemy as intransigent as this is through annihilation. They will not stop with the expulsion of the West from Afghanistan. They will not stop with the destruction of the State of Israel either. They will stop when the West is annihilated. Its quite clearly us or them.

Jack Layton is wrong.

There is no appeasing an enemy who will always hate us for what we are, open, democratic, tolerant and generous. I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that fundamentalist Muslims want anything close to what we would consider peace. In there distorted view of Islam, peace is achieved when all who are not Muslim or will not convert are exterminated. These people (I talk of the fundamentalist Muslims, not Muslims as a whole) do not want dialogue but will gladly ‘chit chat’ with us while they plot against us.