Another warning to America on gun control

- February 19th, 2013

The Armi Jager AP 80 was declared illegal retroactively for cosmetic reasons. Law abiding Canadians would have become criminals if they refused to hand in their rifles.

“All we need is sensible gun policy, like they have in Canada.”

That’s the type of argument that has appeared in columns and letters to the editor across the United States since the gun control debate reignited last December with the Sandy Hook massacre.

You won’t have your guns taken away, just registered with the government. As I said in early January, registration leads to confiscation. That’s been the Canadian experience anyway as police and politicians decided that certain guns were bad and needed to be surrendered.

How did they get law abiding gun owners to surrender their rifles without compensation? They are all in the registry and failure to comply means jail time.

Now Missouri and several other states are following that lead and considering bills that will force legal and law abiding firearms owners to surrender their rifles or head to the slammer.

Will these bills pass? Chances are they won’t, but if I were an American gun owner I wouldn’t count on legislators doing the right thing.

There is also the possibility that even if these gun confiscation bills do not pass they could change the discussion. Confiscating guns would have been unthinkable to most Americans until recently, now with legislators discussing laws to that effect, confiscation has gone from unthinkable to radical and could soon become acceptable.

These bills will move the discussion along in the direction of more “sensible gun control” in ways that Americans once would have rejected.

Essentially politicians and the police will soon be harassing gun owners – have you heard of the proposal to allow police to search the homes of gun owners?

In addition to the gun registry, which came as the result of a horrific school shooting, Canada also instituted several other “sensible” gun control policies including licencing and transportation permits.

In Toronto recently a licenced gun owner, one deemed safe enough to be granted a handgun licence which is tough to get in Canada, actually had to take the police to court to try and force them to let him transport his guns to the range. Without this extra piece of paper it is illegal to move the guns from your home.

Yep, that’s right, forget a simple background check. In Canada you need a background check, a safety course, a licence and a hall pass to use your guns. Because in essence that’s what this document, the “Authorization to Transport,” amounts to – a glorified hall pass.

Meanwhile on February 8th, Ian Thomson, a man who lives within 25 miles of Buffalo, NY, was given his guns back by police. Why did he lose them? He fired warning shots at four men who were firebombing his home and yelling out that they would kill him.

After firing off the warning shots and putting out the fire with his own hose, Thomson waited for police and fire officials to show up. He was promptly charged for several offences, including pointing a firearm and careless use of a firearm. A public outcry saw those charges dropped but Thomson still faced charges for what the prosecutor deemed unsafe storage.

Since then he’s been cleared of those charges but not before facing more than 2 years of legal hell and racking up lawyers bills he cannot afford. Oh, and when he was told he would get back his guns the police had confiscated for the duration of his trial he was forced to get a special “Authorization to Transport” in order to pick them up.

This is what passes for sensible gun control in Canada.

This America is your future unless you stand your ground.

 

 

See also:

Registering for confiscation

Ian Thomson got his guns back

VIDEO: Canada’s gun bullies are now the police brass

VIDEO: Quebec and the gun registry – Lilley and Duhaime talk truth, not lies

 

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

20 comments

  1. robins111 says:

    Frankly Brian, I think this nonsense in the states is going to end in violence, and the outcome isn’t going to be what the lefties want.

  2. Good says:

    Confiscation? Sounds good to me!

    Whatever Americans have been doing until now, it hasn’t been working. Something needs to be done to vastly reduce the number of guns in circulation and confiscation seems appropriate to me.

  3. Will says:

    Dear Good
    Since it sounds good to you. Why don’t you go ahead and start doing it. I am sure your neighbors will appreciate your intent to deny them their constitutional rights by confiscating their guns. I am sure that you won’t survive the experience.

  4. chris says:

    Registration leads to confiscation, which leads to dictatorship. When you put all your trust in the government be prepared to end up with no freedom! Look at history people, Fascism only got as far as it did because of registration that lead to confiscation , then there was no one to stop tyrannical government. We in Canada already lost the right to defend ourselves, the criminal is the victim in most cases. The canadian procedure is to scream, call for help run away but if you decide to stand up for yourself BAM your in jail! Don’t think that North America will stay free just because it sort of is now. Apathy and entrusting government with to much power will end us on the same boat as Europe. Way to go Brian for exposing the truth!!

  5. Percival says:

    You know if the difference between the homocide rate between the US and almost any other industrialized country were small, you could make an effective argument that America doesn’t really have a problem with guns.

    But the difference is so dramatic it’s really hard to avoid the question, what is it about the Yanks that they can’t get get the homocide rate down? Perhaps 10 000 deaths per year, or whatever the number is, but is acceptable, and I suppose you could say, yeah we have a lot of violence in the US, but that’s the price you pay. But it’s pretty damned hard to argue there isn’t some systemic problem in the US. Something that’s unique to the US amonsgst industrialzed countries.

  6. Brian Lilley says:

    Percival, interesting that you raised the murder rate in Canada vs the US.

    Not all of the US has a higher murder rate than Canada. Clayton E. Cramer wrote about this for PJ Media recently.

    “What I find fascinating, however, is to look at murder rates for Canadian provinces and compare them to their immediate American state neighbors. When you do that, you discover some very curious differences that show gun availability must be either a very minor factor in determining murder rates, or if it is a major factor, it is overwhelmed by factors that are vastly more important.”

    Read the whole thing.

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/im-glad-that-i-dont-have-canadian-murder-rates-where-i-live/?singlepage=true

  7. Billy Orbit says:

    To “Good”
    This govt cannot even balance a checkbook. There are well over 300,000 million guns in the hands of private citizens, what makes you think they can confiscate that many guns?

  8. Leonidas I says:

    Molon Labe!

  9. Ken Petkau says:

    Confiscation is the ultimate aim. Didn’t Wendy say so at one point.
    The Soviets and Nazis confiscated private firearms.

  10. Alain says:

    First of all I challenge the supporters of gun registration to provide evidence of this affecting criminals using guns. Next I challenge them to name one, yes just one, country that enacted gun registration that did not result in confiscation from law abiding gun owners. The evidence is abundantly clear that gun registration only affect law-abiding citizens, and that registration always leads to confiscation, usually based on cosmetics or some other silly criteria.

  11. Richard says:

    To liberals, government is an altruistic entity that is incapable of going completely corrupt. The idea that the American government could turn tyrannical is insane in the eyes of the Left. The problem is that the government is made up of individuals who have the same weaknesses as everyone else: power hunger, job security, delusions of grandeur, and narcissism.

    So when a liberal hears that the government wants to confiscate the arms of its citizens, their only response is, “Well, it must be for the greater good.” It never occurs to such people that maybe we should be suspicious of government and keep it in check. That’s the whole point of the Constitutional Amendments: limit the power of government so we don’t have another George III.

    Wake up, America!

  12. Bob Cratchette says:

    People like “good”,who are willing to so remorselessly surrender the rights and property of others, should be deported to some despotic crap hole where selling out your neighbour to an authoritarian regime is a daily event. I’d pay to hear his cries for “his rights” as they drag him away after his neighbor rats him out for a false sense of security that he will be spared the same fate simply because he is a snitch.

    Tyrannies just don’t happen they are accepted incrementally by a society that loses its empathy and cohesion.

  13. Steve says:

    Reality check.

    ** Criminals are currently not allowed to own guns but they still have them. **

    hmm…

    Do you want to know why? It’s because criminals don’t care about the law (that’s why they are criminals in the first place…right?). They could care less about some fancy ink scribbled on some fancy paper saying what a “law” is. The concept is meaningless to them.

    Banning guns only affects law abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals will always have them. Try as you might, one simply cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

    Banning guns for law abiding citizens actually empowers criminals by “neutering” the good people in society. Violent crime rates rise. It’s a fact. This is proven in the UK, Australia, and everywhere else on planet earth where it happens. Reason being the strong(er) always will prey upon the weak. It’s engrained into human DNA, and every other species that inhabits this earth. You simply cannot escape this reality no matter how much ink you put on a fancy piece of paper, and call it a “law”.

    The more one empowers a criminal element in society, the more it will run roughshod over a population. Welcome to living on planet earth 101.

    Why some people can’t, or just outright refuse to, understand this is simply mind boggling. They perhaps mean well, but end up being ultimately naive, and grounded in a fantasy world fabrication of reality.

    Projecting your fears (of gun ownership) onto other people, and pushing for a forced political agenda over it, is a form of terrorism.

  14. Brian Stewart says:

    The end goal for all Liberals, Democrats, Progressives, Leftists is the same. Remove guns from the hands of the general public. They have been quite successful over the years by enacting laws making life miserable for gun owners and selectively targeting and confiscating certain groups of guns. Little by little they advance their agenda under the guise of public safety without any proof but the MSM (Sun excepted) parrot the lies and play up the fear and emotional blackmail. Keep shining a light on these enemies of freedom Brian, your competition are too lazy and complicit to do their jobs

  15. Stephen Smith says:

    So when a liberal hears that the government wants to confiscate the arms of its citizens, their only response is, “Well, it must be for the greater good.” It never occurs to such people that maybe we should be suspicious of government and keep it in check. That’s the whole point of the Constitutional Amendments: limit the power of government so we don’t have another George III.

    So when Busg enacts laws that take away freedom that is ok as well I suppose.

    You can own all the guns you want, so long as you look after them I really don’t care. BTW I have never owned or fired a gun in my life and do not want to.

    However to say that guns equal freedom is very simplistic and that a well armed populace keeps the government at bay. Honestly you can have the best automatic weapon on the planet if your not trained to use it and to use in concert with a group of others you’ll be defeated easily by a much smaller and poorer armed force. Two examples that leap to mind, The first uprising in France was put down by a small squad of solders. The German invasion of France in WW2 French had better tanks and more of them and solders, but the Germans won becuase of superior tactics.

    All you weekend warriors protecting liberty would last about 10 minutes against a platoon of trained solders.

    You need to come with a better excuse thatn protecting people from the tyranny of government becuase we already have that in many facets.

  16. Rick says:

    You know what America, don`t do a damn thing,sit on your ass, let the NRA tell you what to do, the politicians including your president : big talk , no action.We will probably have this conversation in a few months , after another mass killing, blah, blah , blah, blah……

  17. Richard says:

    The reason the Framers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights is precisely for the protection of citizens from a tyrannical government. No better excuse is needed. The intent of the Framers is enough to justify it. Their document (the Constitution) is our founding document.

  18. Percival says:

    Brian, I agree that not all of the murder rate in Canada is lower than the US, but this is a multi-variable problem. This piece does not really address that. In any multi-variable problem, if your goal is to disprove a connection between one variable, in this case the strength of gun control laws, and another, in this case the homocide rate, then all you have to do is find a jurisdiction where a third, unmentioned variable, say population density, skews the data in your favour.

    For example, the author of the study says “If gun availability or a lack of restrictive gun-control laws was sufficient to explain any substantial part of murder rates, then these low restriction states should have higher murder rates than their Canadian neighbors”

    This is false. It does not acknowledge the fact that there may be other variables. A common argument I hear is “Texas has much more liberal gun laws than New York and yet New York has a much higher homocide rate”. This of course neglects the obvious fact that New Yorks gun laws are probably a response to high homocide rates. The argument is similar to “Hospitals are bad places to be – the mortality rate is much higher in hospitals than the general population”

    Clearly, and I think you’ll agree with this, the differences in the homocide rates between Canada and the US is significant. If it’s true the in places like Idaho where the murder rate is low, there must be places where it’s high enough to cancel Idaho’s rate.

    I think the author is being intellectually dishonest. If you really want to answer the question, “Do gun laws work”, you can’t be selective in your data.

  19. Jeremy Swanson says:

    Re: You won’t have your guns taken away, just registered with the government. As I said in early January, registration leads to confiscation. That’s been the Canadian experience anyway as police and politicians decided that certain guns were bad and needed to be surrendered”

    I am a living proof of this of course. i didn’t even get time to reguster them properly. They took them from me without a criminal charge or even a criminal act. All I had to do was be a law abiding citizen who owned antique rifles When i asked for details on the guns themselves from the police who took them so i could register them, they refused to help. I never saw the guns again. And does anyone care? No of course not. No-one cares and theyther gun police know this and thats why it all goes on like this. Listen to Brian. He knows what he is talking about.

  20. Bill Cunningham says:

    Violent Crime is lower in the U.S. and getting lower every year, while in Canada it’s rising. Why? One of the chief reasons is the CCW laws in the U.S. 2% of gun owners in the U.S. are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. Every single state that has issued CCW permits has benefited from a decrease in violent crime simply because the bad guys don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t. In Canada that’s not a problem, because the victim is almost always been disarmed by the government. When Michigan officials were faced with the prospect of Federal “shall issue” concealed carry permits, they predicted a blood-bath on the streets. Two years into the program confrontational crime was down a full 31%, and those same officials admitted that in not a single instance were CCW holders involved in a violent crime. Look it up!.. As a Canadian Citizen, you are a Unarmed, Legislated Victim, living in a Culture of Defenselessness..

Comments are closed.