Can You Identify the Assault Rifle?

What is an "Assault Rifle"?  Do we go by the official definition?

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:^[4][5][6]

• It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
• It must be capable of selective fire;
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
• And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

But it would appear that we don't want to use the official definition.  Nope, most people will just tell me they know one when they see one.  So let's look at this selection of firearms.  Which ones do you call 'assault rifles'?

1. AR 15 Civilian version of the M16. Semi-automatic rifle in .223 – restricted in Canada
2. SVT 40 WWII semi-automatic rifle in 7.62x54R – non-restricted in Canada
3. FN C1A1 (FAL) Canadian semi-automatic military rifle in 7.62 NATO - prohibited in Canada
4. M1 carbine WWII full auto rifle in .30 cal – prohibited in Canada
5. Keltec KSG Pump action shotgun.  Not even a rifle! – non-restriced in Canada
6. Barrett  99 50 Caliber bolt action rifle – non-restricted in Canada
7. Garand  WWII semi-automatic rifle in .308 – non-restricted in Canada
8. SKS  Semi-automatic rifle in 7.62x39 – non-restricted in Canada
9. SKS same rifle as above but in nasty black plastic
10. Rob Arms XCR – modern sporting rifle in .223 – non-restricted in Canada

None of these meet any definition of ‘assault rifle’ .  Are the black or tan ones scarier than the wooden ones?  They shouldn’t be!  Those rifles fire the smallest, lightest round.  If you said any of those guns was an assault rifle I would love to know what criteria you used.

Oh, Those French!

They elect a socialist who promises to punish the rich and, strangely, the greedy rich are moving to Belgium.  Then again, who wouldn't after reading stuff like this:

"We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity," he added. 

France's Socialist President Francois Hollande, who famously once declared "I don't like the rich", has pledged to tax annual income of more than one million euros per year at 75 percent. 

In reference to Gerard Depardieu, upon moving to Belgium:

Socialist MP Yann Galut called for the actor to be "stripped of his nationality" if he failed to pay his dues in his mother country, saying the law should be changed to enable such a punishment. 

Benoît Hamon, the consumption minister, said the move amounted to giving France "the finger" and was "anti-patriotic".

They have a MINISTER OF CONSUMPTION?????

Or from the "far right":

But Far-Right National Front leader Marine Le Pen said tax exiles like Mr Depardieu wanted to "have their cake and eat it", adding: "All these people general come running back when they have a health problem."  

Where have we heard that before?  I'm looking at you Khadr family!

So there you have it.  The French will tax themselves into the stone age because the entrepreneurial class just doesn't feel the solidarity of their leftist overlords.  Coming soon, travel restrictions, papers please, exit fees, and families as hostages.  Where have we seen that before?

More Defense of a Free and Open Internet

The last week has been full of shock and disgust over the online bullying and subsequent suicide of Amanda Todd.  I have listened to CKNW in Vancouver and heard calls for an end to anonymous Internet posts, Internet licensing, jail time for insensitivity (Why not, Britain does it...) and more laws restricting speech on the Internet.  As sad as Amanda Todd's death was I don't think we can blame the Internet, and more importantly I think a free and open Internet has been extremely beneficial.

And for reasons you just might not believe!

We all hate pedophiles, right?  And it was a perv who talked Amanda Todd into flashing, right?  So how many pedophile rings were busted in the '70s or 80's?  And how many recently?  In the days of polaroids and limited contact between pedophiles how many individuals were caught exploiting children and how many children were saved from their abusers?  And yet today hardly a week goes by that we don't hear of another ring busted or a child found and rescued and all this because pedophiles feel free to post their trophies on the Internet.  How many faces have been unswirled?  How many hotel rooms identified?  Do we think pedophiles didn't abuse children before the Internet existed?

Do we think that the Internet is creating pedophiles?  Like some think it creates neo-Nazi anti-semites?  Sure some argue that the easy availability of child porn exacerbates the problem.  Personally, I doubt seeing a 7 year old sparks an otherwise normal guy to become a pedophile anymore than seeing naked guys sparks gayness.  Certainly some study would be useful but before - BEFORE- we start trying to turn the Internet in to some English tea house of civility.

No, I believe that the very openness of the Internet has helped us enormously.  We can now identify the pedophiles much earlier, we can find the child pornographers, and we can bring justice to them.  That's just one more reason I'd rather a free and open exchange of ideas on the Internet.

It let's us know who the whackos are.

Will BCL file a Police Report?

Isn't it nice for Warren that he can poke fun at the Christian saviour and no one wants to cut his head off?

  Jesus was there to meet Justin, front and centre, and the Liberal leadership candidate didn’t even break into a sweat!

Still, one wonders if anyone will rush to file a police complaint.

All 12 of them?

So the census came out and one of the more interesting things was that there are apparently a lot of gay married men in Ft. MacMurray.   Well, actually there are a lot of married men living together in Ft. Mac and the census people just assumed two married guys living together were married to each other.  Not so much it seems in the oilsands.  Instead, married guys share accommodations in the Northern Alberta town but they are actually married to women who live elsewhere.  Oh well.

The other thing that struck me was the number of gay couples in Canada:

The agency counted 21,015 married gay and lesbian couples and another 43,560 in common-law relationships. That’s up from the 2006 census, which enumerated 45,345 of them — 7,465 married and 37,885 common-law.

So doing the math, there are  64,575 gay or lesbian couples, married or common law, in Canada.  That's 129,150 gays and lesbians in a steady relationship.  Now I have to start making some assumptions and I'll try to be conservative (Sorry, I mean I'll try to be generous).  Let's assume that half of gay and lesbian individuals are involved in a long term relationship.  That would mean there are 260,000 gays and lesbians in Canada.  The population of Canada is approximately 34,937,000.  So, 260,000 divided by 34,937,000 and we get 0.007 or 0.7%. 

Let's say I was wrong and there are twice as many gay singles as there are gays in relationships:

390,000 / 34,937,000 =  0.011 or 1.1% (which is the number the 2006 census postulated)

So, are my figures really wrong, or was the census incorrect?  Where is my error?  And does this finally put to rest the myth of 10% ?  Or even 2%?

Finally, if 1.1% of Canadians are gay or lesbian, what is the subset that are actually "transgendered"?  And if Rob Anders insulted all of them, would there be enough to fill a bus?

Eleven

Eleven:  Canada finally rids itself of both the francophone anchor and the Trudeau family.

I Don't Hate Gays

I really shouldn't have to say that but I figure it's better safe than sorry.  Chik-Fil-A in the US is finding out the hard way that having an opinion that goes against the accepted wisdom of the establishment left can be dangerous.  I wonder how this guy is going to survive the onslaught now that he has come out to support Chik-Fil-A's COO, Dan Cathy's, right to state his anti-gay marriage opinion?  Will it matter that Steve Salbu is gay himself?

I am afraid.  Literally.  I am afraid that we will soon lose our most basic right; the right to freedom of speech and of conscience.  I am afraid because those on the left characterize opinions they do not like as "hate speech" and work so hard to legislate against opinions they do not like.  I may or may not agree with Dan Cathy regarding gay marriage but I certainly think Cathy's right to freedom of speech is much more important than anyone's "right"* to marry.

In fact, it is precisely because we tolerate unpopular ideas and allow people to express socially divergent ideas that gays have gained the rights that, I believe, they always should have had.  How ironic that those same people who took such good advantage of the bedrock of rights should now try to deny that to others.


*note: No one has a right to marry.  Millions of people are denied marriage because no one wants to to spend ten seconds with them, let alone marry them!  Further, marriage is a moral institution that sets rules and boundaries on couples through promises not to cheat, not to leave when the going gets rough, and so on.  What business is that of government's?  My personal morality is not something I need a bureaucrat to rubber stamp.


Do I think gays should be allowed to marry, not as a right, but as a matter of choice between two consenting adults?  Hell yeah!  But the government should not be "blessing" their marriage in my name, or anyone's, just as they should keep their nose out of my own marriage.

I Told You So...

I told you so.

Monty Robinson gets a conditional sentence. Yup, everyone wants justice in these kinds of cases, especially our lefty friends who love sticking it to The Man or, in this case, a cop.  How fitting then that Monty Robinson gets almost nothing for obstructing justice when he killed motorcyclist, Orion Hutchinson.  You see, Monty is an aboriginal and so gets Gladue consideration.

Despite what BC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip said:

 "...that provisions that favour rehabilitation over jail time for natives are meant to apply to those who have suffered trauma, and other factors that he believes are not present in Robinson's case."

"This is a misapplication in his case because [these provisions] were never meant to be a loophole or a matter of convenience that high-priced lawyers can reach for in order to keep their clients out of jail," Phillip told The Province Friday.

"So I think in that regard, this is a miscarriage of those provisions in the justice system."

a recent court decision states Robinson doesn't have to show any negative effects from being native, it is assumed.

Update:  To use Kate McMillan's tag line - Not Waiting for the Asteroid - Did you know that the young man killed in the Monty Robinson incident was, according to the coroner, speeding excessively and drunk when he hit Robinson's vehicle?  I bet you didn't and I wonder why...

If you don’t favour a ban on private ownership of shotguns, you’re a fucking idiot

Yes Warren, I'm talking to you.  You own a gun and I bet you don't favour banning it.  But if only the US had banned pump shotguns the Joker wouldn't have been nearly as effective killing people in Colorado.  We know this because our friends in Australia have banned all pump shotguns. 

You might think that is reductio ad absurdum but it's not like I made those things up about Australia.  Britain has banned all handguns but they have still had a massive increase of  "gun violence".  It's not like Britain has a porous border with the US, they're a freaking island  and they can't prevent gangs from getting and using handguns!  Germany has stiff gun control and they, too, suffer mass shootings.  So what makes Kinsella think banning already severely restricted handguns will help?  Read this and see:

I’m a gun owner. I don’t think hand guns are needed to hunt. They’re designed to do one thing: kill people. That’s it. My suggestion is this: let’s try something new, and ban handguns. If that doesn’t work, you can go back to your proud old conservative tradition of doing absolutely nothing, and letting children get murdered, okay?”

And there you have it.  We don't "need" hand guns so let's ban them and see.  Let's steal a few billion in legally owned property from Canadians who have jumped through all the government set hoops in order to buy that property and see if that helps.  And if it doesn't, well I guess we can always unmelt those guns, right?

Not exactly.  Kinsella, like Chretien before, doesn't actually plan to seize and melt all those guns.  No, all Kinsella wants for him and his boy, McGuinty, is to do something, anything really, to be seen as doing something.  That's the Liberal answer to everything, really.  From Kyoto to gun control to drug policy the Liberals don't care what they do as long as they do something.   When they "banned" 50% of the legally owned handguns in Canada in the early 90's you might be surprised to know they didn't really ban them so much as make them even more inconvenient for owners.  They're still there, though, the evil small calibre and small size pistols sitting in safes across Canada waiting to be stolen by the gang bangers.  They can't be sold except to other guys who own those guns but they can be inherited by children so they might never go away.  Banning them was never about keeping them off the streets or preventing their theft by gangs.  It was a publicity stunt at the expense of those who don't usually vote Liberal anyway.

You see, it was never about safety, it was about doing anything to be seen as doing something.  The guns were banned but not seized and that gives the lie to Kinsella's new ban.  The guns will still be there if he gets his way because he and his ilk don't have the guts to actually face the Canadian public and say they have spent ten billion dollars compensating gun owners for stealing their property and they don't have the guts to face gun owners and take their property without compensation.  We might actually object to that and guess what?  We have guns!  No, it's all just a paper tiger in the name of "trying something new".  Well, everything old is new again, I guess.

Andrew Coyne - Missing the Point Again

Andrew Coyne wants to install chips in your head and track you so the government can tax you for moving.  Well, Almost. What he really wants is to track your cars by GPS and then tax you based on how far you drive.  That's how you reduce congestion when you live in an ivory tower, I guess.

Well, way to miss the point, Andrew!  Ask yourself, why do people drive?  To get where they are going, of course!  People would drive less if they lived closer to where they were going.  The answer isn't new roads or more obstructionist "traffic calming", nor more transit.  The answer is density.  The problem is the cities where people need to get to in order to work don't want the kind of density necessary to house all the people who want to live there.

Vancouver has very little density and an urban plan that basically bans it.  They talk about laneway housing, secondary suites, and basement suites. Where are the plans for 40 story apartment buildings?  Instead of building real density Vancouver calls for "Eco-density" which basically means a non-plan status quo in a city where a 3 bedroom condo can't be had for less than $350,000.  There is just no room for families.

The fact is people drive because they cannot afford a 3 or 4 bedroom house or apartment close to where they work.  Families are forced to move to the suburbs and endure longer and longer commutes because big cities, mostly run by left-leaning councils, will not let land owners profit from development inside "the ring".   The city of Vancouver is stalling an Aquilini development proposal because it does nothing for drug addicts, errr, I mean "poor people".  The city wants the developer to subsidize low cost rentals for unemployed addicts but will not allow high densities which would bring down prices enough for middle class families.  It's all about priorities and the current Vision/COPE council's priorities are social housing, not the breeders in the 'burbs.

When it comes to traffic it's simply NIMBYism.  All the city core dwellers want is for the poor schmucks to stop driving, they don't care how that is done, just so long as the breeders stay out of their hip, trendy neighbourhoods.

Shocking!

Here I was almost believing what my betters in the Liberal party and NDP have been telling me, that the Israelis are racist Jews who hate Arabs and oppress them.  I am shocked to find that Arab Israelis (Arab Israelis??  There are Arab Israelis!) will soon lose their exemption from being drafted into the army.  So the racist Jews are going to force poor Arab Israelis into the army now?   Dear god, that's terrible!  Making citizens of Israel help in the common defence!  And Orthodox Jews, too!

Ok, so that's just a bit of sarcasm but I do wonder how our left-of-centre friends square that circle.  There are Arab members of the Knesset, Arabs in the Israeli military, Arabs with all the rights of Jews.  What's up with that, lefties?

I Don't Understand

I am watching CNN and I unable to understand the thinking processes of these reporters.  The Libyans just overthrew Ghaddafi, violently.  They were able to overthrow their oppressive government because they had the guns.  Without guns they would have been slaughtered.  Now they are working towards their first election.  So what's the first thing these reporters say needs to be done in order to ensure a smooth transition to democracy?

Get rid of the guns!

Seriously!  They just fought a fucking revolution and these morons on CNN think the best way to ensure good government is the remove the ability to fight a future revolution!

Update:  I remember why I gave up on CNN - A commercial for Erin Burnett came on and the first words she said were "I became a journalist because I wanted to make a difference..."

Really?  Is that what journalism is now?  Here I thought journalists strove to tell the truth about the news.  Now I remember today's journalists "want to make a difference."

This is a Little Bit Better . . .

Free Speech is the foundation of democracy.  Without it there is no way for people to express any opinion that might affect the votes of citizens.  We restrict free speech in ways that make sense such as libel and slander, although I think Canada's laws are too strict on those. We also restrict speech where it causes immediate harm to another person, such a the hackneyed "fire in a theatre".  I personally think we go too far when we equate the harm of being trampled to death with the harm caused by racists and bigots.  Causation is obvious in the first and it's hard to argue the theatre isn't ablaze during a stampede.  However, the harm is not obvious with racist speech and we have the ability and the duty to refute such arguments.

Obviously, I think the kangaroo courts otherwise known a human rights commissions are an atrocity against the most basic freedoms we have.  The courts are a little better because at least truth is a defence there.  How 1984 is it that truth is not a defence in an HRC  hearing?  Well, this story at least restores a tiny bit of faith in the system:

White supremacist can seek help online in attempt to prove racist claims: court

The court has said that truth is defence and that Mr. Tremaine is allowed to seek evidence of the truth of his statements.  Statements like "Jews are a “parasitic race,” that “blacks are intellectually inferior to whites” and “Hitler was a lot nicer to the Jews than they deserved.”".

What a concept it is to let the truth decide his guilt!  While I still think this guy should be allowed to say whatever he likes until he says, directly, "Kill the Jews!" At that point he is inciting violence and I think criminalizing that is a reasonable restriction on speech.  I am happier, still, to see that Canadian judges have enough confidence in rational society to let this guy argue the ridiculous and have the crown refute it.

That is a little bit better.

Sentences Should Fit the Crime

 A while ago I was rather incensed at a new sentencing ruling put forth that said judges should not impose sentences longer than the expected life span of the convicted.  I think it's just another ridiculous ruling that has no real meaning other than old people now get the same discount on crime that aboriginals, women and minorities get.  I mean, if you're 75 and male you're living on borrowed time according to life expectancy stats so does that mean you get no jail time at all?  Because any sentence at that age is a life sentence.  And if you are 55 and commit first degree murder do we strike down the required 25 years as cruel punishment?

Sometimes I think Canada's "justice" system is a lost cause so it is very refreshing to see the Americans know how to deal with crime. Jim Sandusky raped at least 10 boys over a number of years at Penn State and in his home.  He is 65 years old.  In Canada his sentence would be a Graham James-like 2 years.  In the US he is getting a minimum of 60 and up to 400 years.  There is no bulk discount down there, you pay for each crime.  He will die in prison.  He may even find out what it's like to be on the receiving end in the shower.  That is justice.

The "Right" to Assisted Suicide.

Once again we see that if at first you don't succeed, try try again.  And again. And again. Because, you see, once you get a yes they can never say no again.  

It's not like assisted suicide would ever be abused.

The Tree of Liberty

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

That's a good quote.  I'd shorten it slightly. 

Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with blood.    
-- The Rat

I say that because we have become such a risk averse nation that we consistently trample on Liberty in order to avoid injury.  Here in British Columbia our Liberal overlords, Premier Green Jeans and Premier Mom, have each enacted legislation that severely limits our Liberty in pursuit of a risk-free world.  Examples of that legislation are:

• Drunk Driving legislation reducing the threshold for penalties from .08 to .05.
• Speeding laws that allow the confiscation of vehicles for speeding 40km over the limit
• Body armour restrictions
• The newer motorcycle helmet laws

I could go on but I hope you see my point.  When our government starts to infringe on our rights as citizens in order to protect us from ourselves we are on a very slippery slope.  Absurdly, the drunk driving legislation  has been declared unconstitutional if you are over .08 as your right to a trial BEFORE punishment for a criminal offence has been breached.  However, if you are between .05 and .08 those same roadside punishments are apparently perfectly OK.

Obviously there are those who can justify these laws.  Alexa's law, as the drunk driving law is called, is an example of some truly misguided thinking.  The idea that people with blood alcohol between ,05 and .08 are the problem is absurd.  It is the heavy drinking, alcoholic types who consistently drive well above the .08 level that are the threat, even after we take away their drivers licence.  Yet, deaths in BC are down!  Yay!  Right?  Well, no, not to me.  Deaths are down because people, average people who might have drunk too much, again well past .08, are choosing not to drink at all for fear of running foul of this law.  But so what?  We know from many examples that when you enact draconian laws with no right of appeal you will change people's behaviour.  That doesn't make it right.

Worse, though, are laws that force individuals to take steps to protect themselves.  Helmet laws are just that.  What business is it of government's whether I engage in risky behaviour or not?  The rationale is always "because we all pay your medical bills".  But what kind of argument is that?  Can I opt out of socialized medicine?  Will we restrict all other risky activities?  We've already heard many academics argue for banning things like trans-fats, sugary snacks, and even sugar itself.  We have people who argue that some groups' sexual activities are risky.  So where is the line?  It keeps getting pushed a little further with each government.

I am quite serious when I say that Liberty must be watered with blood.  Sure, it may be the blood of idiots who would rather not wear a helmet, or even the blood of innocents killed by speeders.  There is risk in life but when we legislate to reduce risk we may save some lives but the cost in freedom is going to be very high.

A Liberal Complaining About Voting Irregularities?

Boris Buy-A-Vowel has apparently won a court decision overturning his loss in last May's Federal election because, shockingly, people were able to vote more than once and some were improperly identified!

The current law is open to gross abuse yet when governments try to address this it seems Liberals and Dippers flip out. How ironic is it that Boris is now fighting to overturn an election based on improper ID.  If only we had done what us Conservatives wanted this would never have happened.

Oh, and I've got a fiver that any voting irregularities went in his favour.  Signing up ineligible voters is a leftish speciality.

Happy Mother's Day

I have two children, both adopted, and both "unwanted" except by their birthmothers, or at least they both ignored strong family pressure to have abortions. Both birth mothers had serious problems, one drugs and the other mental illness. Both my children are at risk of complications in their life because of it. My wife and I had to choose, with as full a knowledge as possible, to parent these two.

I am deeply saddened when healthy parents choose to abort healthy children because it is financially difficult. Our family is in financial difficulties because of the choice we made to have children, but our finances will get better and we have two wonderful children who will be with us for the rest of our lives. Some say we "bought" our children, and if so it was the best purchase we ever made and every day I am grateful to the two mothers who made a choice that let two wonderful kids live.

Jan Wong is Depressed - How sad...

While I don't have much sympathy for Warren Kinsella's complaint about Jan Wong, oh he of the Barney reference and the well placed picture, I do agree that Jan Wong is quite a piece of work.  How unsurprising then to learn that Heather Mallick is a friend and an admirer of her's.  Oh, how sad it is that poor Jan Wong was persecuted by the evil management-types and MPs for a slight against Canada's unslightable province.  (and how delicious in that it's probably the only thing she ever wrote that I agree with!).

Mallick writes of that persecution:

"... and in an event that is so purely Stalinist I still cannot quite believe it."

Still, what a relief it must have been for Ms. Wong that it wasn't Maoist or they might have disappeared her...

John Reynolds Doesn't Speak for Me

John Reynolds says:

“Those of us who are conservatives are going to make sure that everyone on the conservative side will be with us,” he said. “(John) Cummins may not be on board, but the voters will be.”

 And he also says this:

"We've got a premier [Christy Clark] who's doing a good job and we've got a province that's just got [its] Triple A [credit] rating. Not too many provinces are as well off as we are. We can't afford an NDP government, so we've got to get together."

 Well John, this Conservatives begs to differ.  I am most definitely not "on board" and I most certainly don't think Premier Mom is doing a good job, nor is her party.

This is not just about the economy.  I am less concerned about the economy as I am about the erosion of basic freedom under our social engineering Liberal overlords.  Legislation by lobbyist is just bad policy and I don't see the Liberals having the balls to say no to the utterly mad MADD lobbyists, nor the truly sick minds at the Canadian Cancer Society.  I could go on but the point is simple, that economic success in a society that consistently breaches fundamental rights is not a society I want.  The Liberal party can change its name but until it changes its nanny-state ideology I will not be voting for it.

How to Win an Argument With Yourself

The Bionic Liberal?  It's so easy to win an argument with your imaginary foe when you don't allow comments...

Just a snippet:

Inquisitor: If abortions had been legal, you might never have been born.

Me: So?

Inquisitor: Well, you would never have existed. Anti-abortion laws saved your life.

Me: Let's follow your line of reasoning and say I don't exist. If I don't exist then I can't care whether I might potentially exist or not because, well, I'm not here.

Inquisitor: That's not the point.

Me: How can I have an opinion on something if I don't exist?

Let me finish this argument for him/her/it (I didn't bother to read its profile and I wouldn't want to insult it by using the wrong progressive-acceptable pronoun)

Inquisitor: Bang!!!!  Ok, you're dead now.  You don't exist.  I assume you don't care, right?  What's that, you can't answer me because you don't exist?  Argument won!

We prosecute murderers not because the person they murdered cares, they're dead after-all, we prosecute murder because killing someone is wrong.  Abortion is wrong, especially in a society where so many options for responsible birth control exist.  Heck, I'll even go so far as to accept early abortions, wrong as I feel they are.  But to argue that abortion is OK because the babies killed don't exist now, well, that argument has a bit of a flaw...

(and there's another flaw in the straw argument.  The Inquisitor feels the baby did exist, he wouldn't state something so obviously flawed as "...you would never have existed".)

Death Penalty Hypocrisy

Juxtapose these two men, Hamid Ghassemi-Shall and Ronald Smith, and ask yourself why our government might discriminate between the two.  The media and our bureaucratic betters tell us the Conservatives are bad to pick and choose whom to expend valuable political and monetary treasure on.  Even the courts tell us we must support all Canadians on death row.  The first is going to be executed as a spy by a regime notorious for unjust convictions and politically motivated executions while the second is an admitted multiple murderer who killed to see what it was like.  Now why on earth we would want to pick and choose between those two?

On the Buses

Our superior Greenie friends want us all on transit.  All the better to start the revolution , I guess.

Exploding Houses

That's the title.  It's the only reason I can posit for Natural Resources Canada to change the explosives act regulations regarding the storage of firearm ammunition.  After all, changing the regulations in such a drastic way could only be justified by serious problems in need of a fix, right?  So it must be all those exploding houses . . .

Gun owners decry 'monstrous' changes to ammunition rules

Hunters and shooters are up in arms about the federal government's proposed new explosives regulations, which they say will interfere with everything from big-game  hunting and ammunition storage, to re-enacting historic battles.

The changes require — for the first time in Canada — gun owners to lock away all ammunition.
......
The proposed regulations also seriously restrict the use of big-game rifles, since the regulations define "small-arms ammunition" as bullets no larger than .50 calibre. But in Canada, calibres larger than .50 — such as the .577 Snider and the .505 Gibbs rounds — are frequently used to hunt bears and other large or dangerous game.
Since these large bullets are not defined as small-arms ammunition in the proposed regulations, Arpin said, they will fall into a more general category of blasting explosives. As a result, shooters who use large calibres will have to acquire explosives licences — such as those needed for dynamite — to continue hunting with large-bore rifles.

It gets worse.  From CanadianGunNutz.com (account needed):

Shot Guns:

• 12 gauge is bigger than .50 calibre.  Do I need a blasting license now for a shotgun?
• Has anyone heard back about the shotgun slug issue? (Larger than 50 cal). Unless there's a special exception that might be a real issue. 

Ambiguous anti-theft regulation:

• Even better - if you DO add one more lock, some cop could say 'not good enough, you should have a BETTER lock' and send you to jail. It does not give any clear indication as to what's required to comply with the law. What's "good enough" to prevent theft? Only a judge can say for sure and you'll pay good money to hear his thoughts on the matter if a cop charges you.
• I remember someone saying that padlocks weren't good enough for firearms cabinet locks. I don't recall anything official on this topic.
• The regs require you PREVENT theft. Good luck with that, as long as it is still POSSIBLE to steal your ammo, you are a criminal.

It encourages dangerous storage:

• Lock your ammo in a sealed steel box? Can you say "pipe bomb" when the ammo cooks off inside if there is a fire?

What about transport, or use?

• How will the new regulations impact a person going from home to the shooting range or out hunting? Will a special transportation system be required? The way the proposed regulations are drafted, I could be charged when going out turkey hunting with 10 shells in my pocket.
• Wait 'til you get stopped in your truck and have a couple shotgun shells in the console or a loose .22 rolling around in the back seat somewhere....or have a few rounds from an earlier range/hunting outing in a jacket pocket.

Even the guy who wrote the rules isn't sure what constitutes safe storage:

• But Arpin said the safe storage requirements will not be as complicated as Bernardo suspects. He said any locking container — even those which can be easily removed from a house — likely will satisfy the incoming safe storage requirements.  

These new regs are ambiguous, onerous, dangerous and deceitful.  It's time for our government to stop this constant harassment of gun owners.  Write your MP today and tell them to stop making paper criminals of law abiding gun owners. 

update:  It looks like shotgun shells are specifically designated small arms and not affected by this.  Thank god for small mercies...

 

Mortality

Coyne nails it today.  Not that his subject matter is compelling.  A lifelong loser just arrested for drunk driving (note:  DRUNK driving, not MADD's new crime of drinking and driving) bursts into song, Bohemian Rhapsody, and he becomes an Internet sensation.  Who cares, really?  But this small passage is the nugget in the poop pile:

We're born, we work, we struggle, we suffer, and just when we are starting to figure it all out, we snuff it. In the Tragic View of the Universe, this is deeply unfair, fuel for a lifetime of resentment. In the Comic View of the Universe, it is sublimely funny, a great cosmic joke God plays on us all.

And that's life for you.  There is no great meaning to life except to live it.  That's the test we must pass every day and we all fail it at some point.

A New Era for Alberta

I was a little concerned a few months ago with the election of Allison Redford as PC leader and premiere in Alberta. My concern mainly came from the fawning coverage the eastern media was giving the "human rights lawyer" and "UN employee" Redford.  They fully expected that Redford was going to bring Alberta more into line with, you know, "Canada", or at least the Canada that Easterners believe in.  There was even talk about Alberta moderating the federal Conservatives as their base shifted to the the more moderate Redford-style.

Since then, Alberta has been led by more insular-minded leaders, happy to pit the province’s interests against those of the rest of the country.

That could well change after this election.

Since assuming the reins of the Conservatives last October, Ms. Redford has hinted at a more activist role in the national political agenda. She wasn’t in office a month before she was touring Central Canada talking up a national energy strategy – one that integrates the power dynamics of the entire country.

That is a decidedly different approach than the one taken by recent Alberta premiers Ed Stelmach and Ralph Klein who possessed more us-versus-them mindsets. And it is certainly a contrary vision to the one being offered up by Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose Party.

Oh well, I guess those rednecks will never learn...

A Reminder of Why I stopped Being a "Good" Cathoilc

 I went to mass last night for the first time in twenty years.  I have my reasons and I'll keep them to myself, but this is going to be hard.

The service reminded me, over and over again, why I stopped going.  It is the week before Easter, a long service, and one where the readings really drove home what the Church is trying to teach me:  I'm a worthless sinner and I need the priest to save me.  The reading of the passion was the perfect example of that.  The reader began but any line that was the crowd was spoken by the congregation in response.  We were the evil bastards that killed Christ.  The priest spoke all the lines that were Jesus', underlying that he was our eathly representative of Jesus.  Subtle.

I have met this man, this priest, and he strikes me as being no smarter, no better than me but somehow I have to go through him to receive the blessings of God.  Yup, this is going to be very hard.

Earth Hour... So What Do We Call the Other 8764?

So it's Earth Hour again and I have to decide whether it is worth lighting candles and risking a fire in my house to assuage the guilty consciences of the patrolling greeny vigilantes in my neighbourhood.

Decisions, decisions...

 

 Update:  Hahaaahaaaaa, that's funny!

Things that Never Happen to Me...

Hot teachers "abusing" teenage boys...

Reminds me of this episode of South Park...   Nice

Not Partisan At All...

This article by Jeff Davis shows just how gullible, how lazy, and how easily manipulated the mainstream media is. It unbelievable:

Saskatchewan Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz found himself in hot water Thursday after an Ottawa mother complained he told a Grade 10 class that everyone in Canada should be armed — especially girls.

Dianna Sakisheway wrote a scathing letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews this week. Her complaint stems from a speech Breitkreuz — known as the father of the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry — gave during a career day at Canterbury High School on March 7.

"I am outraged at the irresponsible conduct of the federal government in promoting gun violence to schoolchildren," she wrote. "You have gone much too far."

....

Sakisheway told Postmedia News that she is "just a mother" and has no political associations.

.... In her letter, Sakisheway says Breitkreuz clearly told the students that "it should be much easier for Canadians to attain and own a firearm because it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."

So let's just check a few things. First, Dianna Sakisheway is non-partisan? Uh huh...

From her Twitter feed:

Jack Layton:Tommy Douglas our 1st leader said Dream no little dreams. They said yes 2 a Cda where anything is possible. No 1 is left behind.

or

Cdn Boat “Tahrir” will sail 2 help end Israel’s illegal siege of #Gaza

But even if you are a moron and can't type a name into Google don't you think a real reporter with even an ounce of common sense would question if Gary Breitkreuz would actually say "it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."? Really? Would he call self-defence "gun violence" or is that the interpretation of a political activist? It would make me stop and think before I wrote an article based solely on her word that she is non-partisan and her account of what was said.

Truly another sad day in Canadian journalism.

Open Thread for James Morton's Anonymous Troll

Here ya go, dude, as promised,  prove me a Liberal.

The End Game of the War on Free Speech

Here it is, another couple of feet down the slope.

"A British university student was jailed for 56 days Tuesday after admitting inciting racial hatred by posting offensive comments on Twitter following the collapse of a professional soccer player on live television. ....

Sentencing the student, district judge John Charles said there was "no alternative" to an immediate prison sentence, as when Mr. Muamba collapsed "it was not the football world who was praying for him... everybody was praying for his life."

Stacey's remarks on Twitter as the footballer battled for his life were "vile and abhorrent," the judge added."

So there we have it. We've gone from fire in a theatre to banning racism to jailing drunk university students for a lack of sensitivity to a hurt footballer. Such a brave new world we live in.

Prostitution Laws Struck Down

From the ruling at the Ontario Court of Appeal:

[325] For the reasons set out above, we declare that ss. 210 and 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.

[326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as it applies to s. 210. We suspend this declaration of invalidity for 12 months to give Parliament an opportunity to draft a Charter-compliant bawdy-house provision, should it elect to do so.

[327] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 212(1)(j), we read in words of limitation to clarify that the prohibition on living on the avails of prostitution applies only to those who do so “in circumstances of exploitation”.

[328] We conclude that the communicating provision in s. 213(1)(c) does not offend the principles of fundamental justice. Accordingly, it does not infringe the respondents’ s. 7 Charter rights. We further conclude that the application judge was bound by the Prostitution Reference to hold that s. 213(1)(c) is a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter. We allow the appeal on these issues.

[329] The stay of the application judge’s decision is extended for 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons so that all parties can consider their positions. The practical effect is:

· The declaration of invalidity in respect of the bawdy-house provisions is suspended for one year from the date of the release of these reasons.

· The amended living on the avails provision takes effect 30 days from the date of the release of these reasons.

· The communicating provision remains in full force.

[330] We thank all counsel, including counsel for the interveners, for their thorough and thoughtful submissions. This is not a case for costs.

Signed: “Doherty J.A.”

“M. Rosenberg J.A.”

“K. Feldman J.A."

I am no fan of the exploitation of women but neither do I believe that no woman can choose to sell sex without coercion and exploitation. No, I wouldn't choose this career for my daughter but then a lot of people would object to her joining the army or becoming a lawyer. It is HER choice. If she did decide to take up prostitution I would want her to do so in the safest environment possible, with the support of other prostitutes and with the ability to employ security, financial and HR staff, and even be employed by a company that facilitates those support functions. I am happy that women, and men by the way, have choices.

It's funny how the Feminists and the religious right agree on this one, though. At least the religious right is consistent in their moral objection. How does a feminist who insists on a woman's right to choose justify opposing this?

Monty Robinson is guilty!

Just wondering if some people's heads will explode when they realize Monty Robinson is entitled to Gladue consideration during sentencing...

Don't Ride Off into the Sunset Just yet...

C19 has passed the commons and will certainly pass the senate unamended. So yes, the fight over the registry is over. Still, it is with some sadness I read this:

Cowboys for Social Responsibility: Thanks for reading

Dude! The fight isn't over, Charlie Angus is right! We aren't done pushing back the badly written and ill thought out gun laws in Canada. We have many complaints:

1) The storage laws are almost indecipherable even for lawyers and judges.
2) The Authorization To Transport (ATT) system for restricted firearms is unwieldy and is being abused by provincial CFOs
3) The system of firearm classification is broken. An AR is restricted but a Tavor or Robinson XCR is not. A WWII vet bring back Luger is a prohibited gun, as are all .25 and .32 caliber hand guns. Are they really extra-special dangerous?
4) Despite constitutional and common law that supports firearms ownership as a right the present law criminalizes firearms ownership.
5) The ownership of firearms for self-defence is still prohibited. One cannot answer sefl-defence on the licensing forms and get a PAL.

I could go on but that's plenty for now. It's not that I don't respect CFSR, it's that I disagree vehemently, that's why I write this. I expect a fight but I also think that when the world doesn't end and blood does not flow in out streets, it would be nice to have CFSR around to see that.