01 November 2014

You wouldn't understand, it's...

...a Canadian thing...

The Security Service Employees Association requested last year that they be armed when working outside the Parliament buildings.

The association said there would be an expectation from parliamentarians, the RCMP and the public that guards would respond in the event of a security crisis, but without guns, guards would not be able to respond to any armed attack that put lives at risk.
And how did the bureaucracy respond?
In a letter to the association dated Oct. 28, 2013, however, Commons Clerk Audrey O’Brien denied the request. Security Constables were told instead to “retreat” and let the RCMP handle any threat.
Told to retreat. That seems to be an all-too-common refrain in Canada these days. Like telling our soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public.

When exactly did standing your ground... politically, culturally, emotionally... or simply protecting yourself and your family... become a bad thing?


Anonymous said...

My old Dad, a WW2 Vet, told me a long time ago.
If you can't (or won't) defend something it does not belong to you.
Some fights you have to have,
failure is not an option.
Muclair cannot say "Terror Attack" yet wants 24/7 protection.
I am OK with 24/7 protection for him as long as they are unarmed.

Neo Conservative said...

i'm guessing after those shots were fired in parliament, tom mulcair was pissing his pants and praying for armed guards to show up and rescue his pinko butt.


E Mac said...

Most of the guards in the HOC were previously Armed Forces personnel and are familiar with weapons of most types.
A matter of a short weapons famil course for them and that should be sufficient.
Just because we are retired, some things are instilled within the persona for life.
Some things you never forget, and this is but one of them.

Neo Conservative said...

most firearms owners, like ex-military types, take gun ownership very seriously.

unlike most police officers, who are subject to infrequent requalification tests, civilian shooters are very often at the range every week.

back in the 80's, i was a qualified ipsc shooter and myself and the girlfriend burned through 600 rounds every weekend doing moving combat drills against multiple targets.

i suspect your average copper hasn't fired 600 rounds over a 25 year career.


tao_taier said...

"Like telling our soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public."

I thought that was just for off duty personal. In which case I don't see that as a signal weakness to our enemies.
Governments have done a lot worse in that regard over a good many things.

Neo Conservative said...

"tao says... I don't see that as a signal weakness to our enemies."

if we are at the point where terrorists dictate public behavior, it is time to rethink the situation.

in israel all young people do mandatory military service. it is not unusual to see, for instance, young girls on leave, hitchhiking home with rifles slung over their sholders. rest assured these are not ceremonial weapons.

putting uniformed soldiers out on display with unloaded weapons is tempting fate.

i'm guessing most people will keep their heads firmly up their collective asses until that first suicide bomber at yonge & bloor.


tao_taier said...

"putting uniformed soldiers out on display with unloaded weapons is tempting fate"

^was my point. i didnt make that clear. I assumed it was what we all meant.
Israel is a very good example.
Armed personal walking amidst the population inst looked upon with disdain as it is elsewhere.
They understand the nature behind the threat and live with it daily.

We've been voluntarily importing from the same places that hate them and us cuz their "holy" book told them to. Only we take next to no precaution over it, if at all.

Neo Conservative said...

tao... what precaution could we apply to all immigrants (obviously can't single out one group) that would make the country safer?

i'm not ragging on you... serious question. remember, israel has a significant muslim component in their population.


tao_taier said...

I had sent you an email of my reply to that question. Since it wouldn't let me post here where I would of liked it to be challenged. Do post that here if your able or have the time to bother.

In relation:


The first comment is very complimentary to my solution.

colliemum said,
I think we need a propaganda drive for our muslim "Brits", especially given that they now are using 'sharia finance': tell them they and their families (and cats!) will get a free flight to the ISIS 'caliphate', and they can take with them all their money. Their passports will be taken away and destroyed, and they'll not be allowed to come back.
This is to increase their happiness, seeing that they dislike it here so much, they want to turn our green and pleasant land into a similar h*ll hole as that where they came from.

I think this is fair - to all of us.

--end of comment.

The other half is the rest of the muslims who are genuinely repulsed by ISIS etc and want a way out from the insanity by joining or catching back up with the rest of civilization.

Neo Conservative said...

tao... not sure why blogger wouldn't take your other comment... perhaps the length?

pls feel free to retry... perhaps in smaller chunks.


tao_taier said...

It was under the limit but was treating it like it wasn't or complaining about HTML code.

I wlll try paragraphs at a time to single out the culprit.

"obviously can't single out one group"

Sure we could, I don't subscribe to the fallacy of Israel the "victim turned victimizer" (a slanderous libel) nor the idea that by singling out a group that "comes in peace" yet wishes our conversion or death, that we are somehow like the Nazi's (national socialist party).

That single aspect that gets tied to nazism as if that was what cause the great evil alone is false. They were supremacist and targeted the weak or disabled under the premise that only the strong should survive and wasn't limited to wiping out Jewish people, only started with them.

That differs distinctly from survival of the fittest. Which some Capitalist may reference in a non literal sense as a matter of circumstance, not as direct action taken against anyone.

tao_taier said...

Stopping Nazism then just as stopping Islam now, would be the most pluralist thing to do. We are talking about a common enemy to all humanity.

The west had(1) to drop bombs over Germany's civilian population centers during that war as they did to Britain, given that it was a war over the survival of the humanity and freedom.

Targeting a group that has at the core of its beliefs to convert or enslave else kill you as the primary doctrine unfiltered from any politically correct facade, is about SURVIVAL through self preservation.
This among other things is why I denounce the non-aggression "principle", which was used by so-called (fake/Paulian) libertarians to go against the invasion of the Hussein "acid dipping torturous" dictatorship in Iraq.
Incidentally, Iraq DID have WMDs(2) which now belong to 'IS' else managed by Syria or also by

Modern "liberals" would have it the other way around , that only "bad guys" are allowed to do bad things to preserve their evil.
"We can't own/use Nukes or Chemical or biological weapons; those are for 'bad guys' to use against us, not us against them when our backs are to a wall."
"Good guys" have to be made of the purest of intentions and words and fight their battles as "martyrs" to the slaughter. Really they mean: sheep to the plunder of our obvious (and self declared) enemies.




(2)Had other links but trouble fetching them with a teething baby strapped to me.



tao_taier said...

Islam is also supremacist as they're own saying goes:

"First Saturday, then Sunday"

Look that phrase up as to how it relates to Islam. (However, I skipped links like frontpagemag, since they promote David Horowitz who is a fraud).

Ironically it was the "peace loving" "Palestinians"(and by extension the Islamic world) who were on side with the Nazi's.
It is well documented and is where the phrase Islamofascism comes from. That isn't to say most muslims are part of that strain of Islam today, but but that many more are actually WORSE as which has been further exposed given the rise of the ISIS etc, and the so called peaceful Muslims drawn over to fight for it.

I have no qualms over telling them to renounce violence and the koran/qur'an/"holy" books.
They can dress however they like, pray to whoever they like but drop the expectation that-THAT should have anything to do with the rest of us in any manner.
Else get deported. Yes I said it.
I do put our survival and liberty over that of invasion through population or stealth jihad.
I would rather not end up like "EURO-ABIA". This is not a "slippery slope" accept to idiots who can't control themselves ("liberals"). Who manage to take a mile with any millimeter of power they snatch. They can self deport back to the moon where the rest of their lunatic moonbeam friends wish to live. Maybe that a tie in the the same moon god they like to worship with their islamic buddies.