Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Canada » Tory MP: Trudeau Can Pry Guns From My ‘Cold, Dead Hands’

Tory MP: Trudeau Can Pry Guns From My ‘Cold, Dead Hands’

Tory MP: Trudeau Can Pry Guns From My ‘Cold, Dead Hands’.

Blaine Calkins

Conservative MP Blaine Calkins believes the Trudeau Liberals want to take away his firearms. (CP)

Conservative MP Blaine Calkins believes the Trudeau Liberals want to take away his firearms.

And to that, the Alberta native says they must pry them from his “cold, dead hands.”

Calkins rose in the House during members’ statements on Monday to highlight that Liberals will debate a resolution at their biennial convention later this month calling on any future Grit governments to reduce the number of firearms in Canada.

And to Calkins, who represents the Alberta riding of Wetaskiwin, that means Liberals already have a “plan to confiscate rifles and shotguns from law-abiding Canadian firearms owners.”

Calkins said Liberals have not moved beyond when former justice minister Allan Rock said only cops and the military should possess firearms.

“If the Liberal leader wants my guns, he can pry them from my cold, dead hands,” he said to great applause.

The reference will remind many of Charlton Heston’s famous speech to the National Rifle Association convention in 2000.

There are more than 160 different policy resolutions that will be debated by Grit delegates at the convention, dealing with everything from democratic reform and drinking water to veterans issues and fracking.

The resolution Calkins referenced, “Fewer Guns, Less Violence,” has been put forward by the Young Liberals of Canada. It says nothing specific about confiscating legal firearms.

WHEREAS evidence demonstrates a clear relationship between the number of firearms in a society and the number of firearm-related homicides and suicides;WHEREAS gun violence in our urban and suburban centres remains a significant threat to public safety;

WHEREAS incidents of firearm-related crimes, deaths and injuries decrease when access to firearms is combined with effective policies that keep firearms out of the hands of those who would use them to for such purposes;

WHEREAS the Australian Conservative government of John Howard successfully reduced the number of firearms in that country through proactive initiatives such as gun buybacks which led to decreases in the rates of firearm-related crimes, homicides and suicides;

BE IT RESOLVED that the primary objective of a Liberal government firearms policy shall be reducing the number of firearms in Canada through initiatives inspired by the Australian model.

The policy proposal has already generated discussion and debate on the Liberal website.

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard brought in major gun reforms in 1996 after a massacre in which 35 people were killed. 

In a column published in The New York Times last year, Howard elaborated on how he worked to ban automatic and semiautomatic weapons and how his government bought back — then destroyed — about 700,000 guns from Australians.

Calkins’ remarks came as Conservative MP Rob Anders faces criticism for posing at a shooting range over the weekend in front of a target that depicts Osama bin Laden.

The chairman of the Muslim Council of Calgary told the Calgary Herald that the image portrays Muslims as terrorists “who should be short or belittled.”

1 Comment

  1. My comment:
    There is something to be said about the US’s Constitution and its 2nd Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms. One of the primary justifications for inclusion was the importance of citizens being armed to fight oppression. The US had just ‘relieved’ itself of what was considered a very oppressive British regime and did not want its new country to succumb to such rule again. As we enter the ‘Brave New World’ of Orwellian-governments spying on everyone, ignoring consitutional/charter rights, bypassing governmental checks and balances, and instituting totalitarian legislation, how are citizens to counter such oppressive regimes when non-violent protesting is being curtailed through a host of other draconian/authoritarian rules (even made illegal in some countries)?

    People need to remember what economist Murray Rothbard has argued in his essay, Anatomy of the State: “…the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of force and violence in a given territorial area….[it] provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively ‘peaceful’ the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society…[and] the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise, and, at least, inevitable…ideological support being vital to the State, it must unceasingly try to impress the public with ‘legitimacy,’ to distinguish its activities from those of mere brigands.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 313 other subscribers

  • 71,738
February 2014

Top Clicks

  • None