It’s instantly eye-catching when the left-leaning Washington Post publishes an article with the title: “Trudeau is coming for Canadians’ guns….”
Everyone should be asking the question of why Trudeau is systematically disarming law-abiding Canadians, actually demanding that they hand over their guns, while charging taxpayers millions of dollars to execute the plan. It’s suspicious, particularly coming from a man of his reputation.
Chicago has among the strictest gun laws in the country, and the city has so much gun violence that it’s nicknamed Chiraq, Chicago and Iraq, i.e. a warzone. Washington is also infamous for its “epidemic of gun crime and serious violence,” and it, too, has strict gun laws. Two cities that are internationally well known for gun violence, and yet both have among the strictest gun controls in America. In Canada, “the vast majority of crime guns seized in Canada’s biggest city last year came from the United States.” Police chiefs in Canada have clearly stated that guns used in crimes are not those obtained by legal gun owners. Most Canadians, or anyone, for that matter, should know this. As Trudeau takes advantage of the emotions of Canadians to strip law-abiding Canadians, including longtime collectors, of their weapons, Canada will be a country where only the government and the worst criminals will have access to guns. Fascist regimes disarm their populations.
The website Firearm Owners Against Crime points out the history of tyrannical regimes:
1911: Turkey; citizens disarmed – 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered
1929: Russia; citizens disarmed – 20 million Russians murdered
1935: China; citizens disarmed – 20 million Chinese killed
1938: Germany; citizens disarmed – 6 million Jews murdered
1956: Cambodia; citizens disarmed – 1 million “intellectuals” killed
1964: Guatemala; citizens disarmed – 100,000 Mayan Indians massacred
1970: Uganda; citizens disarmed – 300,000 Christians put to death
At the time of a recessed economy due to bad management of the Covid crisis, Trudeau is offering money: “Depending on the make and model of the gun, owners could be compensated from between $1,000 and $2,100.” But not all provinces will be cooperating. Alberta and Saskatchewan “recently introduced bills to seek greater ‘sovereignty’ for their provinces and to fight what they see as federal intrusion.” The RCMP in New Brunswick has also expressed unwillingness to back Trudeau’s gun seizures with their already stretched resources. Other provinces are waiting for more details from the Trudeau government.
With a prime minister who admires “China’s basic dictatorship,” trends are increasingly worrying in Canada. Trudeau also found a loophole in Canada’s democracy and formed a pact with subservient NDP opposition leader Jagmeet Singh to make sure Trudeau stays in power until 2025.
“Trudeau is coming for Canadians’ guns. Some provinces refuse to help,” by Amanda Coletta, Washington Post, December 2, 2022:
TORONTO — After a gunman rampaged across rural Nova Scotia in 2020, killing 22 people in Canada’s worst mass killing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of “military-grade” assault-style firearms and pledged to buy them back from owners.
Now, as Canada’s Liberal government prepares to launch the first phase of the mandatory buyback, several provinces and territories say they won’t help.
The most strident opponents, including the United Conservative Party government in Alberta, are suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) “refuse to participate.” Tyler Shandro, the province’s justice minister, declared the buyback was not “an objective, priority or goal” of the province or its Mounties. Alberta, he said, is “not legally obligated to provide resources for it.”
Marco Mendicino, Canada’s public safety minister, has cast Alberta’s “reckless” position as a “political stunt.” But Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick have also balked at using “scarce RCMP resources” for the program….
Most provinces and territories contacted by The Washington Post, including those that support the gun buyback, said they were waiting for more details on what will be required of them. Prince Edward Island did not respond to a request for comment.
Yukon’s government said it supports Trudeau’s gun-control proposals and is committed to finding a balance between counteracting the adverse impacts of illegal firearms and respecting hunting rights. But Tracy-Anne McPhee, the territory’s justice minister, has told Mendicino that its RCMP lacks the “administrative, personnel or the financial resources” to participate without additional support, a spokeswoman said…..
Dano50 says
Watch “Innocents Betrayed – The True History of Gun Control.”
Just checked and it’s still on youtube.
Dano50 says
Mind you.
People who read this site don’t need convincing.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
What is news to me here is the Kanucks having firearms: I always thought that they turn their noses at us for having them. Well, looks like for Canada, there may be hope after all
Dano50 says
That’s typical liberal b.s. you’ve been hearing.
While I can’t say how many firearms all Canadians have in comparison to America…
From Manitoba on west, I’d bet we’re close percentage wise.
EVERYBODY I know has at least a hunting rifle or shotgun, and over half of the people I know have both, plus a .22, as well as a few other favorites.
Mind you, Canadians like me, AVOID nutjobs who “despise” guns like the proverbial pestilencetial plague upon humanity they are so…
I could be biased here.
TyAlder says
Not really much hope. I live in BC, the westermost province of Turdistan, and we have here a left leaning provincial government that will eagerly submit to the will of the Turd.
Rarely says
Getting rid of “military-grade assault style firearms shouldn’t have anyone “up in arms”.
They aren’t necessary for hunting rabbits.
Daniel Triplett says
The Second Amendment is not for hunting. Nor is it for self-protection and home defense.
The only reason the Fathers gave us 2A is to guarantee the People control the government, not the other way around.
Wellington says
Correct. And it’s no coincidence this amendment comes right after the one protecting all kinds of freedom.
Rarely says
The U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. ONLY.
There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada.
I seem to recall that the 2nd amendment was more about protecting the U.S. from England than to protect its citizens from its own government. Not being a student of U.S. history I could be wrong.
In any event, in Canada it’s much different.
Wellington says
No, the 2nd Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1791, had nothing to do with protecting American citizens from Great Britain, which we had defeated as of 1783. This amendment was instituted to ensure that American citizens could be armed as a guarantor against governmental tyranny and why in this amendment it is stated that a well armed militia is necessary to a FREE state (my emphasis with the word “free” all caps). Too bad Canada doesn’t have such a provision in their constitution because then it would be harder for the wretched control-freak Trudeau to do what he is doing. Poor Canada.
Rarely says
Wellinton.
So it’s to allow individual citizens or groups of citizens to guarantee freedom from government tyranny? It’s interesting to imagine how that would work. Kindly explain.
After all it’s a pretty vague concept.
Wellington says
Not vague at all, Rarely. Has a lot to do with the expression that when the people fear the government you have tyranny and when the government fears the people you have democracy.
Government, a la Jefferson, is best when it governs least. Do you really think a turd like Trudeau believes in this? This is the very person who has praised China’s way of running things.
Put another way, and I will invoke Horace here, Si vis pacem, para bellum—If you wish for peace, prepare for war. This applies not only at the macrocosmic level but also at the microcosmic level. A strong, independent well armed citizenry is the best defense against government overreach, and why so many Leftists are so interested in taking guns away from citizens. Like Trudeau, Biden et al. Learn—but I predict you won’t.
milo minderbinder says
The Framers of the Constitution of the United States clearly understood this principle…
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)
They completely understood human nature and that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Corruption is occurring at an unprecedented rate all across the world, especially in Western countries.
“The Decline of a Nation – History and Christian Values.”
https://probe.org/the-decline-of-a-nation/
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”
– John Adams (1735-1826)
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
– Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Rarely says
Wellington.
That’s all fine and good except who decides when the gov’t is being tyrannical or when it is suffering from overreach? The Proud Boys? Donald Trump? Robert Spencer? The Oath Keepers? The Catholic Church? The KKK? Leftists? The NAACP?
Bit of a dilemma.
Everyone has a viewpoint on when the gov’t is overreaching, underreaching, being tyrannical, etc.
The theory may be fine and good but…
Wellington says
Who decides, Rarely? Why the people overall.
What? Since the decider is rather vague at times, this means that holding on to freedom and keeping the government in check shouldn’t occur in the first place?
Waiting for the kind of precision you imply is waiting for government tyranny. Better that the people err now and again instead of any government.
I’m with the people. Seems you are only too ready to accord first decision making with government. Not me. Government should know that it serves at the pleasure of the people and not the other way around. Turdeau and Dementia Joe, among so many others, want it otherwise. Seems you do too.
James Lincoln says
milo minderbinder says, regarding the framers of the U.S. Constitution:
“They completely understood human nature and that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Yes they did – and this is where we are now:
Our once great Republic now hanging by a thread…
TyAlder says
“Military grade assault firearms”? Give me a break. The mere fact that you use that term betrays your lack of knowledge, and likely your blind allegance to the Turd.
Rarely says
TyAlder
Firstly, no such allegiance exists. Far from it.
Secondly, I can see no valid reason not to ban certain firearms and plenty of reasons to do so.
The matter is so clear I am amazed you can’t see it. Blind? Or are you just a touch right of Attila the Hun?
No need to reply — res ipsa loquitur.