Wednesday, 25 August 2010

When a Blogging Tory Uses a Photo Like This . . .



. . . you know someone has bitten off a hunk of burning stooopid.

Here's one of them opining on the long-gun registry. First he (probably) outlines how everybody in Canada -- except the Frenchies and who gives a shit about them? -- is on side with scrapping the registry because everybody knows that those darned criminals just won't register their deer rifles. Then, with breathtaking (well, for a BT) clarity, he (surely) goes on:
So - with things going our way, what do we do?

* we build more prisons that we don't need, throwing money away while running a massive deficit, based upon ideological motivations unsupported by any evidence that more prisons will make us safer, based upon Stockwell Day's comments that they are to address "unreported crime"- hence taking away any "high ground" we otherwise have in the argument against spending money on "crime reduction" without evidence to support that crime is reduced
* on the virtual eve of what appears to be a probable successful vote to scrap the registry,we fire the R.C.M.P. head of the registry;
* after receipt of a report on the registry, which is suggested to be positive, we appear to bury the report until after the vote, and when called on this, the response of Vic Toews is “Canadians don’t need another report to know that the long-gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars.”

Really Vic? How 'bout letting me and other Canadians decide what we "need", pal?

Because, while I'm no genius, I'm thinking if the report comes out later and is positive, it will give the hapless Michael Ignatieff yet another weapon to use to suggest the Conservatives are secretive and not to be trusted.

Gee, ya think?

But how the heck can the report be 'positive' if the gun registry is such a blight on our liberties?

The blogger says that they'll just explain that the report isn't really positive and then everyone can continue blithely ignoring all the facty-sciency-experty stuff they don't like.

8 comments:

deBeauxOs said...

I dunno, fern hill. I think that pic captures the essence of the BloggingConjobs: white male (which symbolically includes dusky-skinned non-male sycophants - yes DoDo, we're looking at you) shooting himself in the foot with stubby handgun.

Orwell's Bastard said...

Harpokon fetish for law 'n' order runs smack into the police lobby. Hilarity ensues ...

pat said...

I think the photo is missing one thing... his foot should be in his mouth while he's aiming at it.

ck said...

Oh dear, and R.G. Harvie once upon a time, was one of the more lucid of the that motley bunch. I think he's been a Blogging SupoosiTory for much too long, now.

Yanno, I lived in hunting territory, in Lac Megantic for a few years with ex #2. Poaching is also a big thing. They don't pay attention to laws stating not to kill babies or females (moose & deer territory). At hunting season, they show off their manhood by driving all over the village and outskirts with the damned carcass in the container of some gas guzzling big assed pick up truck. Much more horror I observed every fall. Many hunted simply for sport; they killed and left the carcass there.

For those reasons, in my ideal world, no citizen would have any firearms and hunting would be banned. Nobody needs neither in this day and age. I mean, what the hell was Kimveer gill doing with a semi-automatic? What does a city slicker or any citizen need with semis or automatics? They don't need 'em.

But, if folks must have guns, we must at least have much tighter gun control laws. Maintaining long gun registry would be a start. Banning ownership of automatics and semi-automatics for civilians should be the next step.

Someone suggested to me that 'law-abiding farmers and hunters' deserve their privacy. I disagree, if they choose to have a deadly weapon; they lose that privilege.

I already illustrated above how in hunting territory, hunters are not necessarily law abiding.

earlofswirl said...

I just love the Harpocrisy in "Nanny state BAD -they want to take away out GUNS CONSARNIT", and Toews attitude of "Nanny state GOOD -we know what's best for you - you don't need to see that report"

JJ said...

fern hill - Rob H is about the most rational person at the BTs. (One of the type we could work with.) The report is apparently positive, which is no surprise since it's hard to imagine the RCs releasing a negative report. But more info is always good, I'm glad it got out.



ck -- That was quite the astonishing comment. 



"Someone suggested to me that 'law-abiding farmers and hunters' deserve their privacy. I disagree, if they choose to have a deadly weapon; they lose that privilege."

That "someone" would have been me.



Privacy isn't a "privilege", it's a right -- the same right (security of person) on which R.v.Morgentaler, the decision that won us unfettered access to abortion, was predicated. Referring to rights as "privileges" is just a little bit fascist, IMHO. If some fetus fetishist said a woman's right to reproductive choice was a "privilege", I'd freak *right* out.



"in my ideal world, no citizen would have any firearms and hunting would be banned."



In our friend SUZANNE's ideal world, no citizen would have any abortions and abortion would be banned, because doing so, in her view, would "save lives". (But thanks for confirming my suspicion about the pro-registry end game.)

ck said...

Comparing me to Suzie ALLCAPSLOCK? Rich!

How does gun control correlate with abortion? Apples...oranges...For the record, we're on the same side on abortion, so the Suzy ALLCAPSLOCK comparison there, well, that's just nasty & inaccurate.
But since you brought up abortion: to correct your information, if I may, back in the days of the Morgentaler court cases, abortions were quite restricted & difficult to access back in those days. You're probably thinking of Tremblay v Daigle in 1989; only then the fetus was declared not a person under the law, thus not afforded the same protections as a person. That's when our abortion laws loosened considerably. Background at my place with the link with particulars of supreme court case.

http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2010/04/16/i-guess-this-new-abortion-bill-wouldnt-work-in-reverse-would-it/

But thanks for confirming my suspicion about the pro-registry end game

I don't know if that's the case for everybody who is pro-registry. It is certainly my case.

Did you read the above comment about what I had to endure when living in Lac Megantic? Hunters over there were certainly not law abiding; nor responsible. It's like right out of a scene from "Deliverance". I did report them to the Surete de Quebec; fat lot of good that did; fines and slaps on the wrist; I guess those hunting laws were mere suggestions.

Abortion is a medical procedure afforded confidentiality like any other medical procedure. Guns are deadly weapons. I, for one, would be concerned if my next door neighbours had guns, and if you met those neighbours of mine; as dysfunctional and unstable as they are, I think you would be too.

JJ said...

ck - I should have put that remark in context. My intention wasn't to analogize abortion and gun ownership as much as point out that the same authoritarian mindset drives the desire to ban any right or freedom in the supposed interest of "the greater good".

"to correct your information, if I may, back in the days of the Morgentaler court cases, abortions were quite restricted & difficult to access back in those days. You're probably thinking of Tremblay v Daigle in 1989"

No, my information is just fine, thanks. R.v.Morgentaler was the 1988 decision that nullified the existing abortion law, creating the situation that exists to this day (no law). Tremblay v.Daigle was an important decision too, just nowhere near as important as R.v.Morgentaler.

"I, for one, would be concerned if my next door neighbours had guns, and if you met those neighbours of mine; as dysfunctional and unstable as they are, I think you would be too."

I might be. But not to the point where I'd advocate penalizing the 99.9+% of the nation's law-abiding, non-deranged gun owners.

Post a Comment