09 September 2008

Stephane Dion...

...should really start off all his pressers... "Once upon a time..."

Liberal Leader St├ęphane Dion wants to prohibit assault weapons if he becomes Prime Minister and says Stephen Harper is “soft on crime” because he refuses to do the same.
A couple of small points here, Stef.

Actual assault rifles, like those used by our troops in Afghanistan, are already prohibited in Canada. More to the point, this gun is no more an assault rifle than you are.

The firearm used by Kimveer Gill... (you know... the guy with a psychiatric history who waltzed past the Fiberals two-billion dollar "Farmer Bob Rifle Registry")... was actually more of a glorified pistol with a shoulder stock.

Sure it looked dark and menacing in all those tv spots... but it fires 9mm pistol ammo... as opposed to the Nato standard .223 Remington rifle cartridge that can rip through walls, vehicles and kevlar vests... like Jason Kenney through... well... you, for instance.

And guess what Stef?

Even if this firearm had never existed, Krazy Ol' Kimveer was gonna find a way. He would have run people down with his car... or set their house on fire... or stove in their skull with mom's meat tenderiser.

And the sad truth of this situation is that you can't legislate sanity. What you could do though, is stop making up scary stories and exploiting a tragedy to win yourself some votes.

I know you're getting a little desperate these days... but maybe Stephen Harper shouldn't be your biggest concern right now. I'm thinkin' that horse has already left the barn.

Say... what are Bob and Iggy up to these days?

Steffi... Steffi...

**********

FROM THE COMMENTS:
"Yes, dead people are such a hoot. Typical far right "I was just joking" routine."
You mean like your compassionate, progressive, fellow-traveller Canadian Cynic...
A hoot indeed.

**********

POSTSCRIPT: Anybody else getting feedback...

...from the Imperial Romulan Empire?


39 comments:

bigcitylib said...

Those are quibbles only a gun nut would care about. The kind of weapon Gill was obtained legally; the Libs will make it illegal. Not so hard.

Alberta Girl said...

bcl - you are an idiot.

djxtreme said...

The Liberals already tried to do that with the billion dollar registry failure. Why is it that for the past 20 years they have created all the problems we're facing now, and as soon as someone else is in power they try to blame it all on them. What a joke!

Anonymous said...

He would have run people down with his car... or set their house on fire... or stove in their skull with mom's meat tenderiser.
Good old false equivalence.

What sorts of game does one hunt with the Gill arsenal?

mahmood said...

"what are Bob and Iggy up to these days?"

Footnote Dion should toss the gun ban under his bus and focus on a knife ban...last seen the Bobbsey twins were busy sharpening their Ginsu cutlery.

Anonymous said...

last seen the Bobbsey twins were busy sharpening their Ginsu cutlery.
More false equivalency, I see.

We already have a ban on assault knives. They are usually called switchblades. Why can't we ban assault guns? You know, the kind that aren't much use for hunting anything but people.

kursk said...

Anonymous, thank God you are invisible, so that it is possible for you to slink away from here in a moment..perhaps lack of coffee this morning has clouded your reading comprehension..

I believe the cutlery reference was meant as a joke, no? As in, Rae and Iggy are going to be doing a bit of back stabbing, so Steffi might want to look at a knife registry?

It *so* ruins a comedic turn of phrase when one has to explain it, but you are a leftist, so i will type more slowly.

For your information, we already ban 'assault' weapons and have for many years, along with restrictive laws for handguns.Imagine that!

Liberals trying to re-invent the wheel! To top it all off, anywhere where there has been a comprehensive gun ban enacted in the world, the crime rate has risen through the roof.

Please explain how this could happen?

Anonymous said...

Stephi should give up his security because (gasp) they carry guns.
Political parties that take guns from citizens usually have reason to fear the public themselves.

kursk said...

Yeah yeah...BCL..we get it..

We know what you would do, so we're not going to let you.

Bans and confiscations make liberals fascists.

Not so hard, huh?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"bcl says... Those are quibbles only a gun nut would care about. The kind of weapon Gill was obtained legally; the Libs will make it illegal. Not so hard."

yup... like the two billion dollar, liberal-built taxpayer funded quibble... the much vaunted "farmer bob rifle registry."

funny though... gill, who had a psych history, qualified to obtain the gun despite this outrageous fiberal boondoggle.

how about, every time a drunk driver kills someone... we ban that particular car?
that's not so hard either... and just as nonsensicle.

but hey... it'll solve that drinking and driving problem... eventually.

poor steffi... clowns to the left of him... jokers to the right... thank goodness he has "big city liberal" and "bilbo cherniak" to defend him.

*

Anonymous said...

For your information, we already ban 'assault' weapons and have for many years, along with restrictive laws for handguns.Imagine that!
Kimveer Gill's guns were the ones I was asking about. Legal weapons. Why? What sort of game would one hunt with a semi automatic?

Liberals trying to re-invent the wheel! To top it all off, anywhere where there has been a comprehensive gun ban enacted in the world, the crime rate has risen through the roof.

Please explain how this could happen?

We continue to have a lower crime rate than the US.

You can trot out Washington DC as your poster child for "ban guns, crime goes up" meme, but of course there is no border control with Virginia.

Anonymous said...

Sadly banning anything does not work ,U K and Australia banned all guns, result a huge spike in crime. The steps that Stephen Harpers Conservatives have pushed through the Lib dominated Senate have been held up every inch of the way by, guess who ? and now Dion puts on his "crime fighter suit" and starts "trash talking" sad little display actually>
cheers Bubba

Anonymous said...

It *so* ruins a comedic turn of phrase when one has to explain it, but you are a leftist, so i will type more slowly.
Yes, dead people are such a hoot.

Typical far right "I was just joking" routine.

Auntie Liberal said...

Weren't the Liberals always the ones saying "you can't legislate morality", and isn't what this is trying to accomplish?

The government has no business in the bedrooms or the gun lockers of Canadians, right?

bcl, you truly are an idiot. Gill did not need the CX4 to do what he did; any run of the mill rifle/shotgun/.22 could have done the same or worse. Gill was sucked in by it's 'evil appearance' thankfully, because it shoots a pathetic round. The registry didn't stop him, the licensing system didn't stop him, the fact that the university was a 'gun free zone' didn't stop him - is this sinking in yet?

Anonymous said...

Who was it that originally decided and that this gun was OK for the public to own, and who was it that set the conditions for Gill to obtain this weapon?

Come on, take a guess.

JA Goneaux said...

Typical Liberal. Basically, its the same as using the "Walkerton Defence", without EVER coming up with an answer to my question: why did nobody catch the Koebel Brothers in 25 years of criminal malfeasance?

Criminals won't register their guns. We don't need another law, as we already have a damn good one. Its called First Degree Murder.

How many times do you have to tell them this before it gets through?

There has to be SOME intelligence in a Liberal brain, even if you have to look in the brainstem for it.

Those twerps at Columbine broke dozens of laws before they took their first shots. How on earth would another one help?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon asks... What sorts of game does one hunt with the Gill arsenal?"

duh... maybe you should read slower, nonny. it's a restricted firearm. you're only permitted to transport it directly to a target range.

and banning this pea-shooter and leaving 30 calibre deer rifles (which, incidentally, fire a round that can crack an engine block) seems a little illogical, if i don't say so myself.

and, my fascistic friend, you obviously skipped over the link i provided...

Resolved: That "need" is the only criterion

"I agree. There is no need in today's world for a citizen to own a gun."

"Having come to agreement that 'need' is the threshold for a citizen's right to own a firearm, the discussion is ready to move forward."

"Announce to your friend that you are ready to accompany them to their home. You will begin with an inspection of the kitchen, and from there, will work your way through their house, tagging each possession you believe they do not need in 'today's world'."

"Don't forget the garage."

goodbye 52" plasma tv. goodbye motorcycle. goodbye table saw...

*

Anonymous said...

duh... maybe you should read slower, nonny. it's a restricted firearm. you're only permitted to transport it directly to a target range.
So there is no reason for it to be available at all to anyone outside of law enforcement and the military.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon rhymes... So there is no reason for it to be available"

read slower, dufus... the military and the cops just sneer at this "darth vader" gun.

and, after reading the post directly above yours... tell me if you still think "need" is the criterion you want to use here.

i mean, who gets to decide what everybody "needs"... your pal steffi? he apparently thinks people don't need cars.

*

kursk said...

"Kimveer Gill's guns were the ones I was asking about. Legal weapons. Why? What sort of game would one hunt with a semi automatic?"

Many hunters use semi-automatic firearms when they are in the field.Shotguns as well.While his firearm was more of a glorified pistol, it was in the carbine configuration.

"So there is no reason for it to be available at all to anyone outside of law enforcement and the military."

Restricted class is a highly positive and strict control on any firearm.All it means is that there is a greater burden put on a prospective owner to show he is capable of obtaining and keeping a firearm in this class.

To take it farther..

If the guns are legislated out of private hands by anti-military leftists, who is to say that they would not attempt to restrict their use even there?

Social engineers do not like people with the capability to resist the changes inflicted upon them.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon asks... "Kimveer Gill's guns were the ones I was asking about. Legal weapons. Why? What sort of game would one hunt with a semi automatic?"

krazy kimveer didn't possess any hunting firearms.

you know why?

he wasn't a hunter... he was a mental patient... who apparently slipped under the fiberals two billion dollar "farmer bob rifle registry" radar.

say, nonny... when are we gonna see steffi's "national crazy people registry"?

maybe if mummy and daddy had just bought kimveer an xbox, huh? he could have stayed in the basement and played halo 24 hours a day... instead of running around killing actual people.

*

Anonymous said...

So crazy Gill slipped through the cracks in the gun registry, and you will solve that by abolishing it? That way he wouldn't have to act normal for longer than it takes to pick up an arsenal at walmart.


Why not ban the kind of weapons he had? Is there some need for such weapons?

kursk claims hunters use semi-automatics. What sort of game does one hunt with such a weapon? It isn't ducks, where you can use a shotgun but can't have more than three cartridges in it.

Anonymous said...

Social engineers do not like people with the capability to resist the changes inflicted upon them.

Good old NRA talking point.

It always makes me laugh when they talk about how they are going to make the government fear an "armed" populace.

Which peashooter do they expect is going to scare a government with 10,000 hydrogen bombs, a dozen aircraft carriers and numerous tanks?

Foster Karcha said...

The CX4 Storm is a target rifle. No military or police organization uses it because it is not effective, nor was it designed for such a purpose.

The argument that there should be a demonstratable need for someone to posess something is an illogical argument. Rather the government must demonstrate that there is a reasonable argument against owning or posessing a weapon. No government or political party has made a sound case on that subject.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon, yet again, tearfully poses that immortal question... Is there some need..?"

well... not if you don't give a crap about individual rights and freedoms.

go back and read over the comment thread... the question of "need" has been addressed... more than once.

we don't need dozens of types of automobiles... we could all drive a yugo.

we don't need power tools... just government registered handymen.

and, curiously enough... more folks are maimed and killed by both these items in canada... than by legally registered firearms.

so take another run at it, scooby... but maybe this time... you should read slower.

*

Anonymous said...

You keep saying we should continue to allow Kimveer Gill's weapons to be available, yet you are coy on why we should not allow all types of weapons.

Can you explain why your logic wouldn't justify keeping ever deadlier weapons. Why can't I have military weapons? Don't hand me "well that'll never happen", defend your premise that says we should continue to allow cx4 storm rifles but not machine guns.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... continue to allow Kimveer Gill's weapons to be available"

you're not serious, are you?

a psychiatric patient kills someone with a gun... and your solution is to ban the implement?

so you really are saying that when a drunk driver kills someone... we should ban toyota camrys?

how about we set up a "national ladder registry" while we're at it?

"On average, 30 people a day were sent to hospital in Ontario last November after falling from a ladder, as people prepared their homes for winter or clean up their gardens, according CIHI."

and please, gawd... do something about those 'evil' bunkbeds.

you think it's up to the government "to save you" from bad stuff? just grow a pair, my socialist zombie friend... and try take responsibility for your own life.

and hey... you're supposed to actually read other people's comments... not just scrawl down whatever leftbot nonsense is bouncing around the ol' brainbox.

you might learn something.

or you might as well just stay in the puffin poopin' shallow-end with bigcitylib.

*

Anonymous said...

You continue to draw false equivalences, yet you avoid the basic question. Are there weapons that should be banned or not? Your logic says there should be no limits on what weapons people can own.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon wails... Your logic says there should be no limits on what weapons people can own."

well... i'm pretty sure i draw the line at proton torpedoes, if that helps any.

now, nonny... the vibe i seem to be getting from you, is that anything that isn't absolutely necessary... should be banned.

so... much like like the mad mullahs in iran... you're looking to return us to, what... the age of voltaire?

good luck with that.

*

djxtreme said...

I'd like to own the battlestar gallactica.

starviego said...

There were others involved. Which means this was probably a covert op.

-------

"Another witness told CBC News she was smoking outside the college when she saw a tall, white man wearing a long black trench coat walk down the street with a large gun. He was with a number of other people, said the woman.... The man was about 19 years old with body piercings and wore clothing with studs, she said."
[Comment: the lone gunman was 25 and of south asian extraction. In his photos posted online, it does not appear he had any piercings]]

[poster on ATS, and eyewitness]
A girl giving an interview said that she was standing outside the entrance to the school smoking when she noticed 3 guys in trenchcoats walking towards them and one pulled out an automatic of some kind and started shooting at the entrance of the school...

CanWest News Service
Frightened students giving wildly varying accounts of what was happening inside. There were several reports saying there was one gunman, while others said there were as many as four.

poster 'mattx5'
I was with the media all day (I co-run the Dawson college newspaper) and the police are definitely supressing some information.
The info of 1 gunman doesn't match up with people's descriptions of gunfire taking place over 30-45 minutes, considering the 1 gunman was taken out just 3 minutes after he initially opened fire.
I was in the basement gymnasium when this happened and only found out at 1:30 (shooting happend at 12:41). The radio was on and cut to a breaking news report saying the school had been evacuated, that 4 gunmen were in the school.

cnn.com at 5pm, 9-13-06
--A recorded message at the college administration office said two gunmen were killed...

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:59 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2006
Student Devansh Smri Vastava said he saw a man in military fatigues storm the school’s cafeteria..... Other witnesses said the man wore a black trench coat.

Andie Bennett, CHUM Radio's Team 990
She says students have described at least one suspect as a white male with a beard..... One witness recounts tales of seeing an armed Goth-garbed male with long black hair in the building

940 MontrealAM radio talk show
one witness said the shooter had long stringy hair, another saw 'spiky' hair sticking out from under a mask.
--"a lot of students have seen many, many ...like a lot of shooters..."
--"a lot of what students were hearing on the news is not right"
--"anybody you ask at Dawson....there's no way it was only one shooter/"

www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/13/shots-dawson.html
Earlier reports had said as many as three shooters walked into Dawson College. At one point, police had told local media outlets that two gunmen were dead and a third was still at large.

TorontoStar 9-13-06
Seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Gagnon: She spent the next two hours in that class withother frightened students, listening to the gunfire outside. “It would stop for a minute, and then start again.” Gagnon estimated that she heard at least 30 gunshots. “It was continuous. There had to be more than one shooter,” she said.

CanWest News Service
It is believed two of the dead were gunmen. One report quoted police saying two gunman were dead — one had been shot and one had taken his own life.

www.canada.com/montrealgazette
"The police came out with the guy in handcuffs and there was a long trail of blood behind him," said Sonny Chiasson, an Alexis Nihon(adjacent shopping center) maintenance employee. "He was bleeding heavily from his upper chest. (Then he) fell to the ground and the police kept trying to talk to him."
Many minutes went by. "But eventually they just put a towel over his face because he was dead."
[Comment: these wounds don't sound like they were self inflicted]

Neo Conservative said...

*
"starviego whispers... There were others involved. Which means this was probably a covert op."

uh... dave's not here, man.

*

Anonymous said...

well... i'm pretty sure i draw the line at proton torpedoes, if that helps any.
Why there? If they existed, they would be more deadly than atomic bombs. So we can conclude that you do not believe that there should be any restrictions on what kinds of weapons you can acquire.

now, nonny... the vibe i seem to be getting from you, is that anything that isn't absolutely necessary... should be banned.
That vibe must be coming from your own projections. It certainly isn't from me. Unlike you, I believe there are things that should be banned due to their destructiveness and danger to others.

I believe weaponized anthrax should be banned for private citizens. Since it is presumably less deadly than a proton torpedo, you would not ban it.

For most of us, the argument is about which things should be banned, but you are arguing that nothing currently available today should be banned.

so... much like like the mad mullahs in iran... you're looking to return us to, what... the age of voltaire?
I don't know what the mad mullahs in Iran have to do with domestic policy, but by your own standard, there should be no objection to them obtaining nuclear weapons.

I have a different opinion. I think the mad mullahs should be stopped. They should be denied weapons that are dangerous to their own and other entire countries.

Just like at the local level, I think private citizens should be denied weapons that are dangerous to entire classrooms of students.


It would seem you would like us to return to the old wild west. But I think private citizens with their own unlicensed nuclear accelerators will not bust ghosts, but end up returning us to the stone age.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... I believe weaponized anthrax should be banned for private citizens. Since it is presumably less deadly than a proton torpedo, you would not ban it."

you know what, friend... i'll have to run this one past commander znark... and he's all the way back at starfleet command.

i'll get back to you when i get a definitive answer, okay?

*

Anonymous said...

snigger all you want, the fact remains from your statements that you would prefer a lawless society.

roman romulan said...

Neo, if those 9/11 troofer dudes start showing up, Scotty has promised me a ride on the first beam outa here.

Anonymous said...

Most interesting, even in the Star Trek universe they have similar principles to me, that some weapons should be restricted.

Pickard destroyed the Tox-Utat, to keep it from the 29th century aliens. The Federation and Romulans banned the Thalaron Generator. Pickard bought the Echo Papa 607 system. Captain Janeway destroyed the Caretaker's Array to keep it from falling into the hands of the Kazon. And Pickard destroying the Iconian instant teleportation system to keep it from the Romulans.

But neo thinks the solution to gun murders is... more guns.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anonybot seven of nine intones... in the Star Trek universe they have similar principles to me"

i'm tellin' ya nonny, you took the words right outta my mouth. i've gotta confess, it's more than a little spooky.

in fact, i was gonna suggest that maybe you should, uh... report to doctor mccoy in sickbay.

please buddy... get your meds... get a cat.. get help now.

*

mahmood said...

Good Lord!...heh heh heh heh and hahahahaha...o.k. I'm good, let's get this(nonny)dude back on track...false equivalency..ack! ack!...false equivalency...ack! ack!...let see if it takes.