just whose side is trudeau on?

because it does not seem like it's the side of peaceful people

if you thought that blackface was a bad look for justin bad faith, please allow me to provide a quick look at one that’s far worse.

many have seen the first of his new faces:

the one who wants to ban handgun sales to peaceful people:

this is quite some rhetoric.

one gun death is too many.

but apparently, sending people to jail for actually using guns in crimes is also too much.

and so we come to face number two: bill C-5 which, at the same time justin wants to prevent peaceful, law abiding people from having guns, will eliminate mandatory minimum penalties for those who, wait for it, buy guns illegally and who actually use guns in crimes.

because, well, racism.

duh.

now, reasonable people might take issue with certain kinds of minimum sentencing requirements, especially for non-violent crimes that violated the rights of no one or if the guidelines are capricious or overly severe. i would take such issue myself in many cases.

but this is not one of those cases. in fact, the limits being removed are quite lenient and the crimes quite serious, though the rationale is utterly frivolous and seems to fail around basic logic or reason.

so, because some groups commit more crimes and are more frequent victims of crimes we should eliminate sentencing guidelines for those crimes so we stop putting so many criminals in prison?

how does this even make sense? it seems like responding to a fire by saying “let’s spray less water on the parts that are burning because it’s no fair blaming the wood instead of the brick.”

and even if you stop arresting them, they are disproportionately the victims as well.

so are you even really helping?

you can see the actual bill HERE. (MMP = minimum mandatory penalty)

some excerpts:

so, apparently using a firearm during a crime no longer warrants a 1 year minimum sentence and possessing forbidden firearms or acquiring them illegally shall no longer carry a minimum penalty.

i must confess i find this last one quite ironic. you cannot buy one legally, but do it illegally, and we are reducing the minimum penalty (which had only been one year).

this alone looks deeply questionable, but it rapidly gets worse.

apparently, one firearm death is too many, but 4 years is too much prison time for robbery or extortion while using a gun or “firing one with intent.” being american, that one was new to me so i looked it up:

“wound, maim, or disfigure.” i’m not sure how exactly you’d separate this from “attempted murder” or “attempted manslaughter” both of which seem to retain their MMP’s, but perhaps there is some form of polite canadian shooting of which i am unaware and this distinction is more clear in the land of labatts.

(or maybe this is just capricious and stupid)

but justin is about to have A LOT to say “sorry” for because this overall plan is a recipe for calamity.

it’s been tried in a number of US cities who have made legal gun ownership extremely difficult if not impossible and then essentially stopped prosecuting/eliminated offenses for break-ins, robberies, assault, theft, mugging, and all manner of other mayhem from property damage to arson.

this has NOT gone well.

i used to live in san francisco in the 90’s and 00’s. it was a GREAT town. everyone wanted to visit. parts were seedy, but all of it was safe.

no mas.

it’s now a town that mad max would steer around and where you cannot park a brinks truck without it getting broken into.

this seems to be all of a piece.

you disarm the law abiding population then stop prosecuting crimes or punishing criminals because you don’t like the racial complexion of who it turns out is committing crimes, and then you wonder why everything flies out of control.

you say it’s to combat racism, but the victims are exactly the people you purport to protect. (well, and anyone trying to live or run a business near them.)

because outlawing guns is sure not keeping the outlaws from having guns.

this is clownworld thinking.

it’s clear this does not aid minorities and the very idea of “well, cats commit more crimes than dogs so we need to stop prosecuting/sentencing criminals to even up the doggins count at the pound” is inherently as unjust as it is stupid.

differing outcomes that result from some people or groups making different choices than others is not racism or systemic slant.

it’s cause and effect.

i mean, it’s pretty easy to reduce your chance of being arrested for extorting people with a firearm by, you know, not using a firearm to extort people. crazy theory, i know, but might be worth a try…

this bizarre fixation with taking guns from the lawful while coddling, appeasing, and enabling the lawless has reached epidemic proportions in the west. it’s the woke wisdom of the moment and it’s making city after city into unlivable dystopian crime crimeopolises.

precisely what is the end goal here?

who is the constituency for this?

one really must at some point ask, “just whose side are these “leaders” on?”

because it sure does not look like it’s the side of peaceful people looking to live and let live with respect for rights and property…