Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Oh, Canada,

you're determined to follow Britain down the toilet, aren't you?

Lots of gunbloggers(the Geek here, for instance) have been pointing at the promise(threat?) by Prime Minister Martin that if his Liberal party wins the next election he'll move to ban handguns. This is, of course, after years of telling people "registration has nothing to do with eventual confiscation, nothing at all!". Which, of course, was bull; it's the same with these clowns as with the VPC and Brady group weenies here, lie about what you want to do so you can do it a little at a time.

And the Liberal party has pretty much made it clear what it thinks of anyone who disagrees that this is a good idea, one of their weenies telling an upset voter "take your NRA gun loving ass back to the U.S. where you belong".

For anyone tempted by the though of "Well, if we give a little it won't be too bad, and what's so horrible about having to have a license to own firearms?", I give you this from Moral Flexability:
"My original thought was that a registry, assuming the government doesn’t have a hidden agenda seeking to disarm the populace, was not a bad idea. Owners should be licenced and the firearms should be registered. Much like vehicles. For the few million price tag originally forcast, it seemed like a good idea.

Even in my short time as a recreational shooter and gun owner I’ve watched the “incremental approach” you’ve described begin it’s magic, No more I say. Moderation has entirely failed to serve the firearms owners of this country."

In EVERY CASE I have ever read of, registration HAS been followed by confiscation, either of a particular type of firearm(as a start) or as a blanket thing. Hell, look what happened in California with the registry of 'assault weapons'(all for the public safety, of course). SKS owners were assured their rifles were clear, then about a year later the AG changed his mind and added them to the banned list. And it goes on from there.

The only reason for registration of firearms is to a: make it more difficult/expensive to own them and b: to make it easier to confiscate them down the road. Period. People like Sen. Schumer here make speeches on news shows about how he's only for 'common-sense gun safety laws', but when speaking to the believers he says every law is only a step toward a total ban. If they say it's about crime, they're lying; I've had a couple of people admit it would do nothing toward stopping crime, they just don't think gun ownership should be allowed.

And 'compromising' with those people always means one thing: you lose.

No comments: