Ahab here, sitting in for Sebastian as he travels back from the Gun Blogger’s Rendezvous. On a side note, thank god for Firefox’s built in spellchecker, because without it I would never spell “rendezvous” correctly.
Anyway, I was going to post about The Governator signing the microstamping bill, but Sebastian beat me to it, and with some strong words as well. I pretty much agree with him on that – it’s a retarded bill that will do nothing to fight crime. We’ve got until 2010 to get it overturned; so the fight isn’t completely lost yet.
However, on to the actual topic of today’s blog, which is those dirty Frenchies – admittedly in this case they’re not “really” French, they’re actually from Quebec. Quebec, for those that don’t know is a province in Canada which doesn’t want to be part of Canada, but still wants to enjoy the benefits of being part of Canada. Now, this may surprise you, but I’m not going to say bad things about the folks from Quebec in this blog post; in fact I have many complimentary things to say about them.
The reason for that is this editorial, which I found in Le Quebecois Libre, which translates to “Free Quebecois”, with Quebecois being the word for a person from Quebec. From what I can tell, Le Quebecois Libre is a strongly libertarian publication, so I can only imagine that it doesn’t represent a huge number of the Quebecois. That notwithstanding, it is refreshing to read this sort of editorial coming from north of the border.
The article was clearly written with the US in mind, since it directly references the 2nd Amendment; and what I really enjoy about the piece is the slightly sarcastic tone it takes. The author has a clear disdain for the proponents and ideals of gun control, as he reveals in paragraphs like this:
Digging deeper into their repertoire of justifications, gun control advocates will pull out a favorite claim â€“ that guns are responsible for a vast number of deaths from domestic violence. Indeed, some might even cite dubious statistics claiming that there exist more gun-related killings within families than instances in which private gun use repelled a criminal. But this argument, too, has its assumptions. One such assumption is that, aside from guns, there exist no deadly objects within anybody’s home â€“ such that if one member of a family wanted to kill another, he or she would simply be out of luck for a lack of means. This, of course, implies that the five drowned children of Andrea Yates are still alive and well, that all food is eaten solely using spoons and spatulas, and that human beings are all limbless torsos who have no arms or legs to deliver deadly punches or kicks.
It’s harsh, but it’s true. The author continues the essay, and eventually reaches the ultimate point – that gun control isn’t really about guns, or saving lives. It’s about control. The entire article is definitely worth reading – and it reinforces the title of this entry, that Canada is not a lost cause.