Justin Trudeau Runs for Congress

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,795
7,268
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
I was hunting for a non-Paywalled version of this story about 5am this morning…& I’d love to read the whole thing eventually.

 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Thank you BOOMer!

One of the oddities of Canadian politics is that its Liberal Party politicians so often sound like they’re running for office in the U.S. And, right on time this week, Canadian Prime Minister Jagmeet-Justin Trudeau/Singh has announced that he wants to ban the sale of handguns and confiscate so-called assault weapons via a mandatory buyback.

The timing is no coincidence, as Mr. Trudeau is responding to the U.S. debate over guns and mass shootings. Apparently Canadian politics is too boring, or parochial, or something, because he also vowed to defend abortion rights after the draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked. He even made a show of kneeling at a Black Lives Matter rally in June 2020.

Mr. Trudeau knows there’s no need for the Canadian gun grab. Handguns in Canada already require a federal permit, which can be obtained only by collectors, target shooters and those who can prove they need it for work, and only after completing a safety course, two tests and a background check. Then comes a waiting period of at least a month, registration and hundreds of dollars in fees.

Toronto, a city of three million, was home to only 36,832 firearm licenses of any kind as of May 2019. Strict storage laws make carrying a handgun illegal for all but a few. Toronto police say 85% of guns used in crimes are trafficked from the U.S. A Canadian ban won’t stop that illegal smuggling.

Yet Mr. Trudeau pushes on, playing to a strain of Canadian popular opinion that likes to believe Canada is more enlightened than its neighbors to the South—at least until Canadians take their Florida vacations or need the Yanks for security.

As for Mr. Trudeau’s impact in the U.S., he may find it is the opposite of his intent. Americans on the left can cheer Canada’s gun-law example, but then it doesn’t have a Second Amendment. Other Americans are likely to look at Mr. Trudeau’s gun confiscation and conclude that is exactly what America’s progressives want to do, and would do, without the constitutional right to bear arms.

Canadians seem happy, for the most part, with their political consensus against widespread handgun ownership, and more power to them. Mr. Trudeau’s bouts of cultural condescension may also work for him politically at home. But if he wants to influence U.S. politics, we recommend he emigrate and run for Congress. He and Democrat Beto O’Rourke could campaign together in Texas.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The Liberals’ new gun control bill, C-21, doesn’t even need to be passed into law to achieve its desired ends. That’s because Liberal firearms policy is not about reducing crime, but firing up the party’s left-wing base and forcing Conservatives to take a stand against gun control. It’s preformative political theatre at its finest.

If passed, the vaguely titled “act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms),” would halt all future sales and transfers of handguns in Canada. Existing owners of legal handguns will not be affected, so long as they never intend to sell their weapons or transfer them to someone else, but anyone who goes through the onerous process of receiving a gun licence in the future will be limited to other types of firearms.

It’s not the most logically coherent policy. Does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau think Canada has exactly the right number of civilian-owned handguns? Does he think that licensed firearm owners looking to buy handguns in the future are more likely to use them in the commission of a crime than those who have purchased them in the past?

No. The policy is clearly designed to make it look like he’s instituting strict gun-control measures, without having to confiscate every legal handgun in the country.

The legislation will also institute a mandatory buyback program for what the government likes to call “assault-style firearms.” Back in 2020, the Liberals announced a ban on over 1,500 models of semi-automatic rifles, which are used by sports shooters, hunters and farmers. This, too, was mere theatrics, because some of the models left off the list were virtually identical to the ones that were banned.

Now, the owners of the prohibited long guns will be forced to hand them over to the state.

It is a slap in the face to those who have gone through the trouble of taking the necessary training courses, submitting to the requisite background checks and shelled out their hard-earned money to buy what they thought was a perfectly legal product. The message is clear: even if you do everything by the book, the government could still confiscate your private property on a whim.

C-21 also includes “red flag” and “yellow flag” provisions that will allow courts and police to confiscate firearms or suspend gun licences if a person is believed to be a danger to himself or others, or if her eligibility for a licence is called into question. Such laws have been gaining in popularity in many liberal U.S. states, but the truth is that similar provisions have been in place in Canada for years.

Anyone who applies for a Possession and Acquisition License already has to submit a list of current and former romantic partners, who may be contacted by police to see if they can think of any reason why the applicant shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.

Police already have the ability to confiscate guns without a warrant if they suspect “an offence is being committed, or has been committed.” Firearms can also be confiscated if an owner is accused of domestic violence or has been diagnosed with a mental illness. And all licence-holders are subject to “continuous eligibility screening.”

So while the new red-flag provisions may sound good to liberal Americans who look at Canada’s strict gun-control laws with envy, and to gun-control advocates on this side of the border who are unfamiliar with our current laws, they will not have a meaningful effect on gun crimes.

In fact, the only provisions of the legislation that have the potential to further Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s stated aim of deterring “organized crime and illegal gun smuggling at the border, and (preventing) gun crime from occurring in the first place” are the increased penalties for smuggling and modifying guns to increase their capacity.

Even still, like previous Liberal gun control attempts, C-21 mainly targets legal gun owners, who are not responsible for the vast majority of gun crimes in this country. It effectively bans legal handgun sales, despite the fact that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said a handgun ban will do nothing to deter gun crime and Toronto police said that at least 86 per cent of the guns used to commit crimes in the city last year were smuggled in from the United States.

It’s not that the Liberals don’t know this; it’s that it’s much easier to target lawful gun owners whose personal information and firearms are already in government databases than to bring down the organized criminals who are actually shooting up our streets. And it doesn’t matter anyway, because the point of the legislation is not to make Canadians safer, but to sew divisions and gain support from the anti-gun lobby and urban voters.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,805
4,179
113
Olympus Mons
The Liberals’ new gun control bill, C-21, doesn’t even need to be passed into law to achieve its desired ends. That’s because Liberal firearms policy is not about reducing crime, but firing up the party’s left-wing base and forcing Conservatives to take a stand against gun control. It’s preformative political theatre at its finest.

If passed, the vaguely titled “act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms),” would halt all future sales and transfers of handguns in Canada. Existing owners of legal handguns will not be affected, so long as they never intend to sell their weapons or transfer them to someone else, but anyone who goes through the onerous process of receiving a gun licence in the future will be limited to other types of firearms.

It’s not the most logically coherent policy. Does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau think Canada has exactly the right number of civilian-owned handguns? Does he think that licensed firearm owners looking to buy handguns in the future are more likely to use them in the commission of a crime than those who have purchased them in the past?

No. The policy is clearly designed to make it look like he’s instituting strict gun-control measures, without having to confiscate every legal handgun in the country.

The legislation will also institute a mandatory buyback program for what the government likes to call “assault-style firearms.” Back in 2020, the Liberals announced a ban on over 1,500 models of semi-automatic rifles, which are used by sports shooters, hunters and farmers. This, too, was mere theatrics, because some of the models left off the list were virtually identical to the ones that were banned.

Now, the owners of the prohibited long guns will be forced to hand them over to the state.

It is a slap in the face to those who have gone through the trouble of taking the necessary training courses, submitting to the requisite background checks and shelled out their hard-earned money to buy what they thought was a perfectly legal product. The message is clear: even if you do everything by the book, the government could still confiscate your private property on a whim.

C-21 also includes “red flag” and “yellow flag” provisions that will allow courts and police to confiscate firearms or suspend gun licences if a person is believed to be a danger to himself or others, or if her eligibility for a licence is called into question. Such laws have been gaining in popularity in many liberal U.S. states, but the truth is that similar provisions have been in place in Canada for years.

Anyone who applies for a Possession and Acquisition License already has to submit a list of current and former romantic partners, who may be contacted by police to see if they can think of any reason why the applicant shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.

Police already have the ability to confiscate guns without a warrant if they suspect “an offence is being committed, or has been committed.” Firearms can also be confiscated if an owner is accused of domestic violence or has been diagnosed with a mental illness. And all licence-holders are subject to “continuous eligibility screening.”

So while the new red-flag provisions may sound good to liberal Americans who look at Canada’s strict gun-control laws with envy, and to gun-control advocates on this side of the border who are unfamiliar with our current laws, they will not have a meaningful effect on gun crimes.

In fact, the only provisions of the legislation that have the potential to further Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s stated aim of deterring “organized crime and illegal gun smuggling at the border, and (preventing) gun crime from occurring in the first place” are the increased penalties for smuggling and modifying guns to increase their capacity.

Even still, like previous Liberal gun control attempts, C-21 mainly targets legal gun owners, who are not responsible for the vast majority of gun crimes in this country. It effectively bans legal handgun sales, despite the fact that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said a handgun ban will do nothing to deter gun crime and Toronto police said that at least 86 per cent of the guns used to commit crimes in the city last year were smuggled in from the United States.

It’s not that the Liberals don’t know this; it’s that it’s much easier to target lawful gun owners whose personal information and firearms are already in government databases than to bring down the organized criminals who are actually shooting up our streets. And it doesn’t matter anyway, because the point of the legislation is not to make Canadians safer, but to sew divisions and gain support from the anti-gun lobby and urban voters.
If you have to disarm a population in order to govern it, you must really suck at governing.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Justin Trudeau is showing once again that woke politics matter more to him than keeping our streets safe.

The prime minister is defending a bill his government has before Parliament to reduce sentencing requirements for gun crimes, saying it’s about racial equity.


Bill C-21 only deals with actual gun crime in one instance — it raises the maximum sentence a judge can hand out for certain gun crimes from 10 years to 14 years.

At the same time, his government is pushing through Bill C-5, a law that scraps mandatory minimum sentence for several serious gun crimes. Despite popular Liberal mythology, the Supreme Court did not declare all mandatory minimums unconstitutional — they struck down some, but these punishments have been on the books for decades, including some brought in by Pierre Trudeau’s government.

“Bill C-5 would not stop police from charging people with gun offences or prosecutors from pursuing convictions,” Justin Trudeau said. “What it would do is make sure that criminals face serious penalties, while addressing the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and Indigenous people in the criminal justice system.”

Perhaps that’s a fair assessment of the bill in the sections that deal with changes to sentences for drug crimes, but when it comes to gun crimes – like robbery or extortion with a firearm – his arguments fall apart. If most of the people being charged with these crimes are Black or Indigenous, then so too are their victims.

The rest at the above link.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I’ll admit to having been out of the country for a while, but I was shocked upon my return to learn that Canada had ceased to be a sovereign nation and was now part of Texas.

Our intrepid government was hot on the case, though. To ensure our liberal values were not trampled, the feds were busily introducing handgun legislation, relentlessly crowing about abortion rights and assuring all and sundry that, despite our annexation, we would never become a miserable hell hole like Texas.


Observers of the news and those with even a mild sense of humour will of course know that I’m merely joking. Canada remains a sovereign country with our own laws and cultural norms. What is very much not a joke is the relentless enthusiasm with which Canadian politicians will exploit any tragedy or controversy in the United States for their own political ends.

(The body of the story at the above link)

We have in this country very real and severe problems. Many First Nations communities are still waiting for clean drinking water, our economy is stuttering and our infrastructure is in dire need of serious upgrades. Yet our governments prefer to import tragedy and controversy to drive a political wedge.

While our governments scratch at wounds we have long healed and wail about the pain, Canadians are falling behind. The cost of living in Canada is rising and Canadian salaries aren’t keeping up. Housing is getting more and more unaffordable. Yet these enormous problems are set to the back burner as the government re-litigates gun legislation, abortion and other imported and manufactured problems for political gain.