Category: Security

… that one in five Canadians actually has some balls (I guess it’s better than nothing):

Now can we get some laws that will allow us to defend ourselves??

There’s somebody in the mainstream Canadian media who actually GETS IT!!

For years, various groups in this country (CanadaCarry.org is only one example) have been telling the hoplophobes that Canada is in dire need of becoming a “shall issue” jurisdiction. Not in some half-assed, who-you-know fashion, either: nation-wide. Either nobody’s been getting it, or the ones that are getting it just don’t have the balls to do anything about it.

Well, I’m tickled pink to tell you that Marty Gobin gets it, too. The proof is in today’s Windsor Star. Like I always do with really good stuff, I’m putting the whole damn thing here; before it expires on the paper’s site or disappears down some other internet black hole. Read on and enjoy (emphasis, links, pretty pics, etc. are mine; as usual):

Give Canadians right to use arms in self-defence

Marty Gobin, Special to The Windsor Star

Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008

In a recent Windsor Star article (“Cops see spike in number of crime-fighting do-gooders,” June 25), it was reported that there has been a rise in private citizens defending themselves or others against criminals.

Whether it was a veterinarian fighting an armed robber off with a garbage can, or a bystander chasing a violent mugger who beat a man for his prescription medications, it is clear that Canadians are responsible enough to use defensive force in a reasonable and legal fashion.

That said, it’s time that Canadians be permitted to carry weapons for defence against criminals.

This wouldn’t be such a drastic change in law. It’s already legal under Section 34 of the Criminal Code for Canadians to use necessary force to protect their life, up to and including the use of deadly force.

It’s also legal to own a firearm.

Canada even has a permitting process in place for people to carry firearms at the discretion of their provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO). [But, unless the CFO is your drinking buddy, good f*&%ing luck getting one -Dennis]

The only thing Canada would have to do to enable Canadians to better protect themselves is change the issuing process for an Authorization to Carry (ATC) from “may-issue”– a permit issued at the discretion of the CFO –to “shall-issue,” a permit which must be issued to anybody who meets clearly defined, reasonable training and background check requirements.

Such a change in the ATC-issuing process would make it more accountable, in that the CFO would have no arbitrary authority to withhold or grant the right to defend oneself. That kind of authority should never be held by any one office.

The change would also ensure that every similarly qualified and screened Canadian has an equal right under the law to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors, regardless of whether they have any political ties that would grease the wheels for a carry permit.

Now, some of the more sensationalist politicos out there may suggest that allowing Canadians the suitable means to defend themselves would result in shootouts every day in the streets at high noon. 🙄

This kind of Chicken Little approach to the right of one to preserve his or her own life has been proven wrong time and time again south of the border. Michigan switched from “may issue” to “shall issue” permits in 2002, and yet thousands of Canadians manage to travel across the border daily without witnessing any bloodshed.

Vermont, which has no laws regulating the possession or carrying of arms by non-criminal adults, has the third lowest violent crime rate per capita in the USA. (In fairness, that could be accredited to the similarly lax regulation of public nudity in the state combined with the aging baby boomer population scaring off all of the potential muggers.)

Overall, over thirty states have gone the route of shall-issue permits since the early nineties, and none have seen fit to go back to the days of may-issue. The U.S. experiment has shown that there would be no bloodbath resulting from Canadians being allowed to protect their lives.

Not only has there been no public safety crisis as the result of Americans being able to pack heat, but there have actually been numerous potentially large-scale massacres stopped in progress by those authorized to carry a weapon. [YO! Miller! Pay attention, dipshit! -Dennis]

In 2002, a shooter on a rampage at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped after not one, but two students in different locations heard his shots and retrieved their weapons from their cars, returned, and placed him under arrest until the police arrived.

In February 2007, an off-duty out-of-area police officer who was carrying his weapon at the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City managed to keep an armed madman under fire until Salt Lake City police officers arrived to assist.

This last December, an armed man went to the New Life Church in Colorado after having left a suicide note saying he intended to kill as many people as possible.

He only managed to kill two people at the church before a parishioner shot him.

One can only imagine how these massacres would have turned out, if, like Canada, off-duty police and private citizens were not allowed to carry guns for self-defence. Certainly the murderers in each case, who were intent on committing capital crimes, would be unlikely to care whether or not any law forbade them from carrying a gun.

Both the American example and the recent case of Canadians defending themselves and others in a responsible fashion have proven that private citizens and should be trusted to carry arms without any resulting chaos.

Hopefully our legislators will, in the near future, acknowledge that Canadians have the right to defend themselves guaranteed by the Criminal Code, and modify our weapons laws so that we may have a realistic chance of exercising that right.

Marty Gobin is communications director, Ontario Libertarian Party Member, Canadian Shooting Sports Association in Whitby, Ont.

Those of you who read here, know that I have some mixed feelings about La Belle Province. Sometimes, I really, really want to just bitch-slap Quebec, en masse. Other times, I just love the hell outta the little buggers.

This is one of the latter.

On the one hand, they can be like the surly teenager who lives in the basement, demanding to be let do his own thing but refusing to live by the rules of the parents who actually pay the damned bills. On the other hand, they are capable of some astounding antibullshit from time to time. Today’s editorial in the Montreal Gazette is one such example (my emphasis, of course):

The way Canadians and their government deal with refugee claimants is still, as it has long been, an incoherent muddle of exceptions, special pleading, unverifiable claims, activism, confusion and foolishness.

Politically unpalatable though it might be, somebody needs to drain this swamp, and that somebody will have to be the federal government.

Several recent cases illustrate the problem:

U.S. Army Private Joshua Key deserted, came to Canada, and claimed refugee status, saying that in Iraq he had witnessed looting and violations of human rights. His refugee claim was rejected, but a judge allowed him to stay in Canada anyway.

An un-named Colombian denied refugee status in the U.S. said the “r” word here. Despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. have a “safe haven” agreement governing such cases, a Canadian court said he could stay. Last week a higher court overruled this validation of “asylum shopping,” but activist groups are complaining; the case may not be over.

Even when a bogus claimant loses his appeals, he can find a way to stay.

In British Columbia, Laibar Singh, an Indian who entered Canada with false papers, remains holed up in a Sikh temple. After the laborious hearing and appeals process, he was ordered deported from Canada, but ignored the order. In Canada he became ill and is now paralyzed. Immigration officials have been unable to summon the courage to arrest and deport him, even though he moves frequently from one refuge to another.

In Montreal, another failed refugee claimant, Algerian Abdelkader Belaouni, remains holed up in St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church despite an expulsion order, having slipped into Canada after his U.S. visa expired. Here again, immigration officials defer to the medieval superstition that a place of worship should provide immunity from the law.

At least those two say where they are. An alarming 41,000 people ordered deported from this country – many of them criminals – have just vanished.

There are far too many cases such as those mentioned above, and each time a judge, a pastor, or anyone else puts knee-jerk “compassion” above the rule of law, Canada loses something.

Canadians like to think of ourselves as generous and compassionate people, but where can we draw the line between being welcoming and being suckers? If our refugee-determinations come to be based on simply accepting everyone who gets here and wants to stay, what will the consequences be? Do we want to accept deserters into Canada? From the U.S. alone, or from everywhere? If we do that, how can we think of imposing any penalty on deserters from the Canadian Forces?

Do we really want to allow the unpopularity of the Iraq war in Canada to lead us to treat the U.S. armed forces as somehow illegitimate? Even if we did, shouldn’t this be articulated and regulated by Parliament, rather than by anyone with room in his church basement?

Immigration, including refugee policy, must be based on rules, not on individuals. If it’s not based on rules, then it’s not law.

It’s past time for Canadian refugee law to be clarified, improved, and then enforced with determination and vigour.

Yup; sometimes ya just gotta love the li’l French bastards… 😉

So, does anyone want to tell me just how many decades it will take us to deport this pervert?

Logman Pera didn’t know London police had followed him to the London park or that they knew he went there to meet a 12-year-old girl for sex.

He also didn’t know the girl he chatted with through Yahoo Messenger was an undercover London cyber cop.

This week, the 36-year-old Kurdish immigrant, in custody since his arrest in January after he was picked up when he was re-entering Canada from Iraq, was in court to be sentenced on luring and breaching his release conditions.

The officer, Const. Dale Howe took the nickname “Londongirrrl” and entered the chatroom, describing himself as a 12-year-old girl.

Howe had an unsolicited request from Logman2001can — Pera — for a private chat.

Fourteen minutes into the conversation, Pera asked Howe about having sex, meeting him and not telling.

Pera also invited Howe to view his Web camera. Howe saw a man nude from the waist down — not his face — and he was masturbating.

They agreed to meet the next day at a Burger King at Argyle Mall.

He told the officers it was “all the girl’s fault” because she called police and “I didn’t have sex with her.”

Pera was released a few days later — on May * — and didn’t show up for his next court appearance. [nice to see that revolving door working, isn’t it? -D] He was picked up on Jan. 11.

Ah, hell, waitaminit…. what the HELL am I thinking???? We don’t kick scumbags out of this country! We bust our backsides to BRING THEM IN…

Silly-ass me.

Most of you have heard by now about the Arsehole Of The Universe’s first ever shooting on a subway car, where an 18-year old girl was shot (in the crotch, no less) following a “confrontation with three males.” [TRANSLATION: three little maggots so gutless that they couldn’t even gang up on a girl without a gun] The cops have nabbed one so far, and given the rest of us something that we just don’t see often enough: the name of another shitbag, regardless of his age!

We don’t get this very often and God knows the Leftbot useful idiots will be busting their arses to sweep it back under the rug at the first opportunity, so grab the info now and forearm yourselves while the forewarnin’s good. From the release by the TO cops (my emphasis, of course): (more…)

Just when the hell are the useful idiots in this country going to get it through their thick heads that the warm, fuzzy bunny, hug-a-thug® approach enshrined in the YCJA not only isn’t working, it’s making matters one hell of a lot worse?

As if we didn’t already have plenty of examples of how the YCJA is a menace to public safety that flies in the face of anything and everything even remotely resembling common sense, now we have some more lovely evidence from my own city of London. I checked out the Freeps today and what do you think I found? The inevitable result of a so-called “justice” system that never holds little criminal bastards to account for their actions. In other words, complete and utter bullshit…

A 17-year-old youth is charged in the beating of a woman and her son outside their Marconi Boulevard home two weeks ago.

The male youth is charged in connection to the beating of the 14-year-old son, who went to the aid of his 37-year-old mother — who was attacked by a group of six girls aged 12 to 20 years old.

Witnesses said the 14-year-old boy was attacked by a group of boys and was knocked unconscious when they stomped on his head.

The attack was fueled by a long-simmering dispute between the woman and the girls, three of whom are sisters.

Police and witnesses said the girls punched and kicked the woman.

A 12-year-old allegedly pounded the woman in the head with a shoe, taunting her by saying she was only 12 and no one could do anything to her.

There you have it. These little animals know damned well that they won’t get anything more than a slap on the wrist (if even that) and that knowledge gives them a sense of being untouchable. And when you’re absolutely convinced that you can get away with anything, why bother following the rules? The answer is, you don’t. Of course, there are still plenty of social-worker-nanny types that will tell you that locking these little hellions up isn’t the answer, that they’ll be ever so much more likely to find their way back to being good citizens if they’re just allowed back out on the streets again. Let’s see how well that’s worked out so far, shall we?

Three of the girls are also charged in a Feb. 2 swarming on Highbury Avenue near Huron Street where as many as 25 youths, mainly teenage girls, attacked a 15-year-old boy whose 19-year-old sister was also beaten when she tried to help.

Gee, that’s just working like a charm, isn’t it? But that’s not all; oh, hell no. That would be just too neat and tidy, wouldn’t it? The little punks aren’t content with just swarming people, nosiree. They want to play with guns, too…

A London father’s family is living in fear and is anxious to move after he clashed with a gang of youths — one armed with a handgun — while fishing with his daughter.

“I’m not running from them. I’m not afraid of them, but I want out of this area,” said the man, 30, who lives in a low-income housing complex off Kipps Lane. “My wife and daughter are terrified.”

London police have arrested one 15-year-old suspect and a second suspect is also believed to be in custody.

It’s the third major incident in three months in London involving gangs of youths .

On April 13, a 37-year-old woman was attacked on Marconi Boulevard and on Feb. 2 there was a swarming on Highbury Avenue where about two dozen youths, mainly teenage girls, attacked and stabbed a 15-year-old boy whose sister, 19, also was beaten when she tried to help.

Is anybody else seeing a trend here? And, to be fair, it’s not just the kids. Gangs and other scumsacks of the more grownup variety have figured out that the YCJA is the perfect loophole for them to exploit for their own means. After all, why take risks yourself when you can get some young sucker who thinks they’re untouchable to do all the dirty work for you?

The man said he believes the youths were either members, or younger fans of the Kipps Lane Crew or East of Adelaide gangs.

The Cripps and Blood were also mentioned.

The youths were wearing red and yellow bandannas, police said.

“Even if they’re not in a gang, they pretend to be,” said the man. “The younger ones were just tagging along, asking what was going on.”

Police say they’re looking for two other suspects and that six or seven children, 12 years old or younger, were also involved.

In case you’re wondering, the YCJA has an interesting attitude about kids under the age of twelve. Specifically, if an eleven-year old blows your head off, the little brat can’t be charged with anything. Period. Older ones barely get a slap on the wrist. Criminals know this. And before you start thinking that it’s just the decent folks that are put in danger by all this crap, consider this:

The pair struggled when the man tried to grab the gun and when the youth pulled away, he levelled the gun and yelled, ‘You want me to blow your brains out in front of your kids?’ “

Now here’s the problem: once shit like that starts to hit the fan, it’s only a matter of time before it gets ugly in a very permanent way for someone. And not necessarily the one who’s getting the gun pointed at them. Mark my words: sooner or later, one of these little shits is going to pull a stunt like that when the wrong person is watching!

Someone like me.

All my guns are legally secured (naturally) but I can still be locked and loaded in under 15 seconds if I need to be. No, I’m not making that up; my best time so far is 11.9 seconds. If I looked out my window and saw some punk pointing a gun at someone and hollering “blow your brains out in front of your kids,” I wouldn’t think twice. I’d put one in his head and drop him like a crazy ex-girlfriend. And I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep over it (if you somehow think that I’m a rare bird with that attitude, your head’s even farther up your backside than I imagined it could be). And just what do think all the Leftbot moonbats will have to say then?

Cue the howls of outrage…