04.07.2010 08:49 PM

Not sure how this will work with the tourist line-ups…

…but I guess we’ll find out.

Coming soon to Parliament Hill. Seriously.


  1. Bruce says:

    Mr. Kinsella, Memories of your party’s failed ad campaign threatening “soldiers, with guns, in Canadian cities.” Please do Canada a favour and focus on whatever you may have learned from your party’s well-publicized idea casting-call. Afterall, it couldn’t have been just a desperate plea for attention.

    • parnel says:

      Hey Bruce, your party is now doing exactly what the Libs said they would do.
      Speaking of election stuff, transparency was a major Tory platforom promise and now the PM and his cabinet are about to be proven liars next week when the Afghan coverup gets full play.

    • Philip says:

      Exactly Bruce. I’d be happy to see all references of that sorry event washed from my memory

  2. Brian says:

    Aren’t they pretty normal in Europe? I know I’ve seen a few MP5s at Heathrow.

    What’s stranger: if I heard CBC correctly, the Mounties say they’re being modified to be semi-auto.

    If so, what’s the point? Why not just have a high powered pistol, then?

  3. joshua says:

    People will want to take a lot more pictures of our parliament mounties! I don’t think its a big deal as long as they’re trained professionals. God forbid something were ever to happen but I guess it means they would be better equipped to handle it. Furthermore, if a terrorist or fringe person ever tried to scope out our Parliament Hill, I would assume it to be visual deterrent.

  4. Robbie says:

    If they can’t be trusted with Tasers, why give them machine guns? When I bring the kids to to Ottawa for 2017 celebrations will there be barbed wire, searchlights, dogs, security cameras, cement barricades and full body cavity searhes to greet us? This is surreal, disconcerting, and quite Stalinesque. Much prefer properly trained military personnel if we are going for the junta look.

  5. Brent Sienna says:

    Would you prefer to arm them with a straw and some tissue to make spitballs? They’re police, they get to carry guns which they use to protect us and themselves. The police aren’t the bad guys remember?

  6. Steve T says:

    I don’t understand the point of this post, Warren? What is the subtle insinuation of the “seriously” in your picture caption? That we ought to be suprised and/or outraged by this? Why – because the gun somehow looks more ominous than the guns that Parliament security has been carrying for years? If the decision has been made (rightly so, in my view) that security forces should carry weapons, why not leave the choice of weapon to the experts?

    This issue is a complete red herring, but typical of the anti-gun attitudes of many small-L liberal urbanites in Canada. It’s the same mindset that results in the requests to ban all “semi-automatic” guns in the country, which includes everything from obviously-unnecessary assault rifles to common hunting rifles and shotguns. Before you critique something, perhaps a better understanding of the situation should be considered.

  7. S. Peterson says:

    He said we wouldn’t recognize this country when he was through and he was right I guess.

  8. gretschfan says:

    @Brent they’re already armed. What’s being claimed here is that they need a semi-automatic weaponry upgrade to protect against dangerous threats like Greenpeace demonstrators. This has nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with *looking* like they’re doing something.

    • Brent Sienna says:

      Yes, they are armed with 9mm handguns with what, 7 to 12 rounds – I’m not sure what Mounties clip holds but the MP5 has the ability for a 30 round clip. I’d call that a benefit in the event of a firefight as the need for reloading is cut down. Further, I suspect the MP5 has slightly better range and better accuracy than a handgun thus better stopping power. It gives the Mounties another tool to do their job. Considering it is their lives at risk doing this job, let’s give them every tool we can to do it and stay alive.

      Greenpeace is the only dangerous threat is it? No other group would ever plan something like… oh I don’t know …. set off one-tonne ammonium nitrate bombs at Government targets like the Toronto 18 planned? Also, remember there was the one moron in 1989 who hijacked a bus with hostages onto Parliament Hill claiming he had it loaded with dynamite. Yes it wasn’t true, but what if?

      I just don’t see the issue with giving the Mounties the best tools available to do their job because the world is a dangerous place and I’d rather they have the tools to protect themselves and us.

  9. Bobby says:

    “Coming soon” or “returning”? The same firearms sat in RCMP cars (as they will again soon) until the 90s when they were replaced with shotguns. To quote the Star: “For the RCMP, it’s back to the future; officers once carried MP5s until the force replaced their .38-calibre revolvers with 9-mm pistols in the mid-1990s.”

  10. Elizabeth says:

    I don’t know if this will make it; but here is the Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Form, which in some cases sounds like Our Government:


    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Low High

    1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. 1


    2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. 2


    3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s);
    amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. 3


    4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members;
    amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. 4


    5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. 5


    6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 6


    7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 7


    8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 8


    9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 9


    10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. 10


    11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 11


    12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. 12


    13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 13


    14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 14


    15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 15


    16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 16


    17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 17


    18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. 18

  11. JStanton says:

    In a fire-fight, you want the HK close at hand. If indeed they are armed only with 9mm semi-autos, they don’t stand a chance of either defending themselves, or over-coming an assault by bad guys. I suspect that a team fielded by any gun club in the country would score better at pistol than a team of duty cops.

    Importantly, they need to have the HKs if they are to provide any protection to parliamentarians or the public, should the unthinkable occur. Let’s hope they convert from full to semi-auto, or the collateral damage may be excessive.

    All in all, it’s better that the Royal Canadians are equipped to defend our parliamentary institutions and justice system. If it’s not them, then that responsibility would necessarily fall on citizens, since the military takes their orders from the government.

  12. Squiggy says:

    As long as the horsemen…excuse me…the horsepersons don’t shoot themselves in the foot[they have been known to do that] .Maybe,the answer is not to load them or better yet,why not arm them with big staplers……

  13. caoch says:

    Shouldat least keep Greenpeace away?

  14. Philip says:

    First of all, what all the commentators have completely failed to notice, Warren, is that you have placed a picture of a H&K MP5…SD! For those of you who are untrained professionals (including you Warren), allow me to enlighten. Just to let you know a couple credentials – I have 5 years service in Canadian Army as an infantry non-commissioned member (the guys who get stuff done), and have taken my leadership courses, as well as my machine gun course and my small arms coaching course. The Heckler and Koch MP5 SD is the SILENCED variant of the MP5. That is the variant used by spec forces and is utilized in particular for SURPRISE. The MP5s the RCMP are armed with are not SDs. They’re just your run-of-the-mill MP5s which are common all around the world as police weapons at points of public interest. You can see them at almost any major airport out there. The problem with the 9 mils, for most of you who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn at 15 metres, let alone take the safety off or rectify a stoppage, is that under situations of violent stress, studies have found that you can only accurately hit a target within FIVE METRES. This is because pistols are notoriously difficult to handle and utilize accurately. Even with my experience and practice, I find the 9 mils difficult. Furthermore, as has been said before, a 9 mil does not have the accuracy or stopping power of larger weapons (not that the MP5 has much stopping power anyway compared to a REAL machine gun or assault rifle). The Mp5 at least has a butt-stock which ensures stability in your point-of-frame, far greater accuracy and range, a larger clip for situations that require more rounds (ever played any SWAT video games and wondered how you ran out of the 12 rounds in your pistol mag so damn early?!?). The fact is, ladies and gentleman, the MP5 is no ‘junta’ style weapon or firearm for major violence. All it does is offer the police a safer and more reliable weapon to ensure that they can respond in a manner that will better protect the public. For all you who bash police – go have a beer with an off-duty cop and ask em about his/her job and life experiences, kids, family. You’ll find that they’re humans just as much as you do. And for those of you who bash their training, your ignorance is impossible to conceal as you have never looked at their training programs or process. I have, and I can tell you that it is effective.

    Pardon me for being slightly perturbed at the hysteria and criticism aimed at those who utilize violence on YOUR behalf.

  15. Philip says:

    ps, The article that the weapons will be kept OUT of the public view and IN the VEHICLES. I wouldn’t put down too much money on seeing those too often!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.