09.05.2021 06:58 AM



  1. Andy Kaut says:

    It’s a serpent that spit death in the hands of a radicalized anti-feminist. Many thousands of the rifles will never spit death ever because they’re in the hands of people that bought them.

    So it is with every other firearm on the list. The reason Global (and our PM) were so willingly suckered in by his language is that they have actually no basis of knowledge. As the maxim goes, if law-abiding gun owners were the problem, I promise you that you’d know.

    Also, Canada really doesn’t have a problem with campus shooters. There is no cadre of Lepines wandering around, ready to snap. It happened once, and in the meantime most of the murderers have been gang-related or used a van.

    And confiscating privately-owned property that (full disclosure, this guy owns too) will get us nowhere in getting kill counts down.

    We should maybe instead allow a full public inquiry into how the last guy bagged $400k cash from an odd source days before he was able to dress and drive like an RCMP.

    Or ask how many guns come across the border unchecked.

    Or ask how many gang members have been involved in gun violence lately, compared to reg folks.

    Or ask how many rural people depend on the very firearms Mr. Blair is trying to take away. (google Orvis Sorgen, or Holly Crichton)

    That said.

    Magazine limits are a smart move; most mass shooting criminals are inexperienced and rely on the efficiency of the firearm to get people dead. If they had to reload more often, we’d stop them sooner.

    If urban Canada can’t handle firearms, especially the big cities, I’d say the government should first make them safe enough that folks don’t feel the need to buy handguns for protection. Let’s not disarm the weak. Instead let’s hobble the Strong Man.

    Oh yeah, and if you’re going to discuss something like firearms, make sure the words you use have meaning. That’s the take-away from Trudeau almost choking on his coffee to tell O’Toole what ‘assault weapons’ actually are.

    After all, O’Toole has wielded one in defense of his country. He’ll not likely be schooled by someone that pays people to carry weapons for his safety.

  2. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Perception is nine-tenths of the law. The Conservative war room needs to effectively counter this fast — if that is possible — and I have serious doubts. That’s counter-attack plan number one. Counter-attack plan number two starts with: “I’ve heard Canadians clearly in these last few days and therefore…” (O’Toole scraps the language in the platform that deals with assault-STYLE weapons.) Otherwise, as Warren so effectively argues this is big enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Turn on a dime Erin, and do it now.

    • ANDY JURGEN KAUT says:

      I think today’s events satisfy the criteria.

      • Obvious Sock Puppet #12 says:

        Andy, our gracious host stated his basic premise up front: “Politics is about symbols.” You didn’t (SFAICT) even address it.

        The Average Voter, and many of the not-so-average ones, don’t “think” how they’re going to vote: syllogisms such as you deploy above are just so many blank rounds in your magazine in this fight.

        It doesn’t matter that you are (arguably) “right” — certainly, you are cogent. But so what? You’re trying to “win” entirely the wrong fight.

        In the US, weapons are difficult to outlaw and restrict, not because of the 2A: after all, Amendments can be repealed by other Amendments. But, good luck with that. And, why? Because of what muh gunz are to any American voter, *symbolically*: capital-L Liberty.

        But not in Canada, where guns are symbolically about hunting and crime (note the lack of capitalization there, too: weak symbols).

        Erin O’Toole can only win on this issue, not by arguing the minutiae of things that not one voter in 200 even knows the vocabulary for, but by battling Justin Trudeau symbol-for-symbol.

        Examples: Trudeau is implying O’Toole is “enabling criminals” (doesn’t matter if that’s a meaningless or inaccurate phrase, here); O’Toole needs to respond with, for example, the accusation that the LPC brings in gun control measures, and then — in the eyes of the electorate (so, who cares if it’s “true”) the LPC provides grossly inadequate funding for their enforcement (consistently, decade in and decade out). So, what O’Toole has to do is (1) repeat that trope; (2) announce eighteen zargjillion dollars for future anti-gun work by Police … under existing legislation; (3) repeat that trope; (4) repeat that trope; (5) repeat that trope.

        And: Trudeau, notoriously now, promises and never delivers (on just about any File you can name); yet, here he is “accusing” O’Toole of … wut?? *inconsistency*?? Insincerity?? Fine, JT has chosen his ground: O’Toole should at some appropriate, large-audience venue (i.e., televised, rinse, repeat) list all the miscellaneous gun-control promises the LPC has made since Jean Chrétien left office (optics), noting about each, two things: how suspiciously close to a federal election each announcement of an “initiative” or ban or whatever about firearms was issued from LPC HQ — i.e., they were all cynical and insincere; and (2) how inadequate the follow up has been (in terms not just of legislation and regulations, but cash for actual enforcement) — i,.e., it’s all cynicism and insincerity. Debate the symbolism, not the symbol.

        Symbols have meta-symbols: this isn’t really about firearms anyway, it’s about trustworthiness and leadership on the firearms file. O’Toole shouldn’t waste time trying to win “firearms”, on this front as with so many others, the heart of the electoral conflict between him and Trudeau is trustworthiness & leadership. Therefore that’s what O’Toole should focus on, not firearms. (It’s probably even the ballot question, though admittedly it’s too early to be definitive about the English Canadian & Québec ballot questions will be.)

        Because a debate about firearms isn’t about firearms, nor firearms policy, but about what the electorate decides those both symbolize. Because Politics is about symbols.

  3. Walter says:

    As soon as it was revealed that gun murders are up 78% since Trudeau took over, Trudeau lost the entire gun debate.

  4. Peter Williams says:

    Speaking of symbols; Mr ‘everyone must be vaccinated’, does not require Elections Canada workers to be vaccinated.

    But what do you expect from one dose Justin who attended the G7 meetings whilst not fully vaccinated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *