Reflections on December 6
Today is December 6.
I will be writing letters, meeting with my elected representatives and organizing people within my community to work towards deterring violent atrocities. I will be petitioning feverishly despite the many other demands family life and a career present because I confess an absolute solidarity on the notion of ending such violence.
And not just violence against women. Really, a healthy person will stand opposed to violence against any Gender. Most mass murderers are not specifically misogynists anyway. Even infamous killers like Cho Seung-Hui at Vermont Tech or Kimveer Gill at Dawson College are stereotypical 'equal opportunity' killers and their heinous actions lack coherent victim selection.
No, I think that when remembering a day dedicated to the victims of mass violence, inserting the notion that we will specifically target an end to violence against women seems deliberately sexist and unnecessarily dismissive of the victims of other mass killings.
But let's get beyond platitudes to the ugly heart of this thing.
Update
It has been a very long time since I have had the opportunity to blog anything here at my own site. Having to tend a very hectic day job designing Telecommunications networks in a venture capital start up has kept me from putting the same attention a writer would have, say, on a blog they were funded by special interest parties to develop. Sorry. No funding from the 'powerful Canadian gun lobby' here. Nor from Mr. Suffleupagus, or any other contrived entity 
But I came across this excellent article in my lunch hour and wanted to share it with you as well.
It bears note that the Canadian long gun registry is dying (if not dead already) despite the best efforts of organizations with a financial interest in preserving the enterprise of regulating social behavior. And it is encouraging to see our Global neighbors making the same recognition that this ill conceived social experiment is a complete sham.
Enjoy.
Registration, the big lie.
Peter Moss - Wednesday, September 30, 2009
[ Reads: 177 / Comments:3 ]The Firearms Control Act has not only alienated the police from the public - in particular firearm owners - but also brought the South African Police and Safety and Security into disrepute.
The police in acting as custodians, promoters and enforcers of this Act as their duty and responsibility to the citizens of South Africa have become the object of public doubt and mistrust in their ability and willingness to uphold public safety and security. The Firearms Control Act undermines the very foundations upon which public trust is built in seeking to disarm citizens who daily have to face violent criminals intent on inflicting trauma and depriving them of life, assets and dignity.
“Social philosophers and statesmen over the centuries have agreed that the first duty of government is to protect its citizens. Unless this is done, all else is futile. If the state does not guarantee the safety of its citizens, anarchy ensues.” -- Stephen Mulholland, Another Voice, Sunday Times, Aug 6, 2000.
Elizabeth Mandelman of IANSA
*Update.
Elizabeth took the time to post in her reply below.
I take this time to correct my initial post, because when you are in the wrong, it should be admitted, addressed and made restitution for. Full stop.
I even made snide comments about Elizabeth not posting my article out of band from either site. Let me be clear. Elizabeth is not the bad guy in this. I am. Anger does not justify these things. It clouds them.
Elizabeth appears to be a nice girl with strong opinions. Her exception to my retort as kept below is devoid of malice. We could all learn something from that.
On the other hand, as an ex-paratrooper I can often tend to follow the modified OODA loop of Observe, Overreact, Destroy, Apologize.
And every now and then I get reminders from my other peers that a first amendment is just as important as a second amendment.
In short, making my comments about her instead of the central issue has created a grand mess of things. I hope she and my other readers accept my full apology.
Right thinking dictates that I've got to track down those people and set them square about this post too.
This does not change the original questions. Elizabeth has been moderating replies to the page. We will be watching for replies to commentary there as well as taking them here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Apparently working for Project Plowshares here in Canada, Elizabeth has been writing articles on the viability of gun control and its effectiveness here in Canada.
I found that an interesting theory for an American to posit.
I wrote the response included below in this post to confront her on her own ground. She chose to use her power of censorship there rather than openly meet me in public forum to debate my opinion on her position on gun control.
Far from typical, I have found this is the default expected behavior from people in her camp when faced with tough questions. Not to be deterred or deny the internet public from a proper debate, I have saved the post and replicated it here.
Perhaps she'll be good enough to show up here to debate it? Then again, perhaps not.
On Mumbai
I recently read this post regarding the cost of gun control. It is notable that more unarmed people were killed...
No. Strike that. More defenseless people were at Mumbai than the sum total tally of North America's Columbines or Polytechs. And this while the armed police apparently sat helplessly outside.
Not to belittle the other massacres. Their human cost is unacceptable. But the anti gun lobby thrives off well-seeming emotional but illogical reactions to such a tragedies.
The death of democracy
Ok. Democracy is not dead. Just apparently brain-dead.
Nonetheless, the people have spoken and America has a new president. President Elect Obama has been quoted as cavalierly stating he will be cleaning up the way that Washington operates.
But Greg, as a gun owner I have to ask: "so what, who cares, and what does this information do for me?"
Good question dear reader: We need to be clear that we CANNOT sway the views of radicalized leftists. But by exposing the severity and persistance of the very corruption Obama has vowed to eliminate inside his presidency, we CAN educate those do not worship as the altar of the Obama demagogy. It is crucial that we expose how deeply in the pockets of left-wing lobbyists like George Soros the Obama administration consciously chooses to place itself; even from the very outset of its tenure.
But don't take my word for it. Here's what USA Today had to say about it:
AR15 prohibition complications: or why you should NOT sell your AR15
I read this elsewhere and was motivated to cross-post it here. For those who did not know Mr. Tomlinson, he worked very hard in the NFA on furthering the rights of Canadian gun owners up until the point of his death last year. His legal insights into the question of the future legality of the AR15 in Canada are very sound. In point of fact, it lead me to greater confidence in the legal longevity of mine own and to recommend to you to buy two for yourself. In short, the more AR15s owned in Canada, the more difficult it will be to erradicate them.
THE AR-15 COMPLICATIONS
by David A. Tomlinson, National President (1984-2007)Question: "I hear that the government is planning to convert the Colt AR-15 rifle and all its variants to "prohibited firearm" status. Is that rumor true?"
Answer: Probably not. Converting the AR-15 to "prohibited firearm" status appears, at first glance, to be easy, under CC s. 117.15, which says:
- 117.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council (GIC) may make regulations prescribing [by Order in Council (OIC)] anything that by this Part is to be or may be prescribed. (The GIC is really the Minister, but they like to pretend that the Governor General and the Cabinet, who are members of the GIC, have something to do with it.)
- (2) In making regulations, the [GIC] may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the [GIC], the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes.
Read that "limitation" in CC s. 117.15(2) very carefully. It is designed to work in reverse to what it seems to be saying. The Minister can outlaw anything if, in his own opinion, it is not "reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes." If he outlaws all .30-30 Winchester rifles, for example, no one can stop him – and no court of law can overrule him.
Why can’t a court overrule him? Because the law specifies "in the opinion of the GIC" – and so no court of law can substitute its own opinion for the opinion specified in the law.
Similarly, he can convert, by OIC, all reloading presses to "prohibited devices" and all cartridges that use expanding bullets to "prohibited ammunition" at the drop of a hat, without warning, and without having to go through Parliament. CC s. 117.15 makes the Minister very powerful.
That said, the AR-15 looks vulnerable. However, there is no provision in existing law that would work to "grandfather" any AR-15 or AR-15 owner, and "grandfathering" would be needed.
More media debunkment
I have always cringed when hearing the news media irresponsibly flinging around some of their misleading terminology such as "assault rifle" and "automatic rifle." Whether through deliberate action or indifferent ignorance, they commit the greatest acts of poseur faggotry.
This term, immediately offensive, is profoundly accurate in its modern sense and well placed in its current assignment as written above; "shameless impostors possessed of a grossly limited subject matter depth, masquerading as a subject matter experts -- usually for political or egocentric gains"
UK ‘Gun Crime’ Rampant? Or just common thuggery maybe…
To no one's surprise, gun crime United Kingdom is actually 60% higher than officially reported by the Home Office.
Regardless if they doctored the counting formula to make themselves appear more successful managing the gun crime "risk" that your Grandpa Higgins presents to the United Kingdom with his goose gun, or fervently but delusionally held by its supporters to be an accurate portrayal of success; their exposure is personally funny to me.
What happens when the victims are armed.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
When mass killers meet armed resistance.
It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.
It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.
Another clever comedic comment on “Gun Free Zones”
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Not to be outdone, a fellow poster on CGN fourms directed my attention to the following video. Even my 8 year old daughter was laughing at how stupid an idea it is.