Vincent J. Curtis
16 Oct 2018
Disgusted. Insulted. Contemptuous. That is
how one feels when it is announced that the government wants to hold a
“conversation” on something – when the fix is already in.
Our former drama teacher has tapped the former chief of
Toronto police to hold a national “conversation” in order to gage the political
blowback in case they go through with Bill C-71. They want to hear a
variety of opinions, they say. Sure. Are they seriously suggesting
that they are open to sweet reason? Of course they aren’t.
There are only two opinions: yes, and no. The
overwhelming opinion in the law-abiding gun-owning community is that
restrictions are severe enough and a ban goes too far. There are a few
fanatics on the other side of the argument. Most Canadians don’t own guns
and are either ambivalent or inclined on the basis of not knowing anything
about it to go along with a ban – so long as no one is excessively
inconvenienced. And so the “conversation” is going to consist of a war of
words between law-abiding gun owners and the fanatics on the other side, with
Minister Blair in the middle.
Minister Blair needs to travel to Nunavut and find out how
natives would respond to a ban on certain rifles. Perhaps he should visit
the interior of British Columbia, southern Alberta, and Saskatchewan and obtain
opinions there. When you add those opinions into the mix, you will see
that a ban on guns will be regarded as an illegitimate imposition of uninformed
city opinions on rural Canada. A gun ban won’t hold after a change of
government, and it likely will be resisted in the interim.
Our drama queen likes to prance and pose about the world
stage. He is oh-so politically correct. An Act banning guns that
are in common use and owned to the extent of millions will thoughtlessly create
a drama that Canada doesn’t need. No responsible government should create
a few million scofflaws out of ordinarily law-abiding citizens in pursuit of
some progressivist ideal.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment