The mask has dropped from anti-gun politicians and activists. They aren’t content to merely “control” the more dangerous classifications of firearms, but are on a campaign to ban most firearms outright.
The Liberal mass ban and looming mass confiscation makes civilian ownership of 1,500 different firearms illegal, based solely on their aesthetics. The AR-15 sporting rifle – which admittedly looks militaristic on the outside – has been used in exactly zero reported crimes in Canada in that rifle’s history, yet it tops the list of dangerous “military-style assault rifles” to be banned. Even the oft-cited RCMP agree that it (the AR-15) and many of the other banned rifles are “not assault rifles or military weapons”.
This week the Western Standard‘s Dave Naylor reported that between 2006 and 2018, the Canadian murder rate (include those with firearms) has remained essentially unchanged, while the ownership rate of “restricted” firearms has skyrocketed by almost 850 per cent. According to Toronto Police, 82 per cent of gun crimes in that city are committed with illegally smuggled firearms from the U.S. Virtually none of the remaining guns were legally-obtained, registered firearms.
The clear, quantifiable data be dammed. The self-proclaimed party of facts, science, and evidence-based policy making Liberals, went ahead and banned them anyway.
They know well that legal, licensed firearms owners are not picking up their rifles and pistols to go out and shoot innocent civilians. They know well that they aren’t selling them into the black market. But that’s not the point.
The reason that liberal and socialist politicians and activists want to ban firearms, is that they believe that those who own them don’t need them, and that as one CBC columnist put it, gun owner’s “aren’t normal”.
Guns are not debated on their merits, but as part of a broader culture war. Gun owners are overwhelming not Liberals, and as such, do not fit into the Liberal conception of what it means to be a Canadian. They are an “other”, and deserve to be punished.
The evidence can say whatever it likes. To the Liberal, guns are scary, and gun owners are scary people.
Liberal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has repeatedly made clear that in his Canada, gun ownership is “not a right, but a privilege”, and that civilians who use firearms to defend themselves, their families, or their home, should face prison time.
The above noted CBC columnist skips right past self-defence, and called for gun owners to be thrown in prison (for “long sentences”) just for possessing most firearms.
The mask is off. These people have no intention of finding a reasonable compromise or balance on firearms. Canada arguably had that before the most recent bout of bans. The intention now is to whittle down the civilian firearms community part-by-part, until it is small enough to be finished off with a general, European-style general firearms ban.
If that is where Canada’s left-leaning politicians want to go, let’s call on them to lead by example.
If firearms ownership should be illegal – including for self-defence – then the politicians claiming these guns aren’t needed should forgo their own armed security details.
Everywhere he goes, on every day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a large squad of bodyguards follow him, armed to the teeth with the same firearms that he seeks to ban.
If ordinary citizens are forbidden to own these same firearms or use them to defend themselves, their families, or property with them, then the same should apply to the politicians banning them.
To show he truly believes that firearms are not necessary, the prime minister should order his bodyguards to hand in their guns. He can rely on their extensive skills in karate instead.
When I held public office in Alberta, I regularly received death threats; but since I was not a cabinet minister, was not entitled to an armed security detail. To this, I began the application process for a special license to carry my own .40 cal S&W Bersa for self-protection. I figured, why cost the taxpayer a few hundred grand a year for a few armed guards, when I can just do it myself?
I didn’t get far. There is almost no circumstance in Canada – even for public officials facing death threats – that would allow a civilian to carry a firearm for self-defence. In the end, I thankfully never needed it.
When a mentally unstable Islamist terrorist stormed Parliament Hill in 2014, he used a .30-.30 Winchester Model 94 hunting rifle. I have a similar rifle (safely and legally) stored not 10 feet from my home office desk as I write this. It looks just like the gun that your grampa kept mounted above the cabin door.
The terrorist was specifically prohibited from owning or purchasing any firearm – but determined to kill – he found a way. He cared little for any law written on a scrap of paper.
As the gunman stormed Parliament Hill, MPs and Senators were at the mercy of armed guards to protect them. Thankfully, Parliament’s Sergeant-at-Arms shot and killed him before he could kill more than one, and injure three.
Justin Trudeau was there that day, although he was not the primary target. As he sat under armed guard, was he contemplating if the terrorist had registered his gun? Was he insistent that the bodyguards around him should use jujutsu in the event that he broke into their room?
Farmers like Eddie Maurice of Okotoks, Alberta, do not have armed guards around them 24 hours a day. They don’t even have the police in range of an emergency call. They have to rely on themselves, and responsible firearms ownership to defend themselves, their families, and their property.
While Justin Trudeau sat huddled behind a bodyguard on Parliament Hill, he was likely the most grateful man on Earth that reasonable people around him had guns, and were authorized to use them if necessary.
Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher & CEO of the Western Standard