DON'T PUNISH THOSE WHO AREN'T THE ENEMY

(Whitehorse Star, October 11, 2001)
by Jane Gaffinn

A few days ago, a woman was telling the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that her country is in a sorry state of affairs. It is no longer the safe and secure place it once was.

She blamed the many illegal immigrants and refugees washing up on the shores and demanding entry. She felt they were a direct result of Australia's decay and had left decent people feeling uneasy.

She could have been describing Canada.

Within a few seconds of that interview, some babe was spouting off about implementing the next phase of the gun program so the rest of the firearms could be confiscated.

A floodgate has been opened to unscreened foreigners who often are of dubious character and have committed crimes of force in their homelands. Yet the host country, through disarmament, denies its own people their God-given right to self-defence.

One of the inalienable rights that makes up the foundation for freedom that cannot be tampered with by any government--unless it is condoned--is the right to defend self, family and property against the depredations of others.

One who does not have means to self-protection is effectively committing the sin of suicide. But the state's answer is for the victims to submit. Do as the perpetrators demand and nobody will get hurt. (Tell that to over 6,000 victims who died September 11 as a direct result of a Federal Aviation Administration dictum.)

In 1996, Australia had drafted firearms legislation that didn't have a hope of passing Parliament under the prevailing public attitude.

"Tactics have to be employed by the anti-gun group," instructed Simon Chapman, a professor and radical advocate for victim disarmament.

Chapman was brutally blunt in his book "Over Our Dead Bodies" about how to rid the population of guns.

"Major advances in gun control depend largely on relatively uncommon but more dramatic killings, particularly when these occur in public places. These infrequent events can therefore be considered 'critically important' to possible advances in gun-control policies."

The "critically important" event was conveniently staged on April 28, 1996. Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 18 others with a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Without pomp or ceremony, Parliament passed the "model bill" that lay in wait. Next, the government confiscated and destroyed over half a million privately-owned shotguns and semi-automatic rifles that had never committed a crime.

A video captured the private property being chucked into the fiery furnace. To arrive at this point had taken an act of terrorism.

Yet these bloody massacres, funded by big wealthy organizations, are called "public shootings". And the left-wing mainstream media have used the lives of tourists, students, diners, workers and worshippers as the launch pad for victim disarmament.

Disarmament--victim or civilian; call it what you will--has been achieved more effectively in Australia, England and Canada than in the United States. A Second Amendment attached to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms.

The Bill of Rights clearly defines personal freedoms. Some people have described them as the Bill of Limitations. The 10 Amendments are suppose to limit the U.S. government in how far it can go to control people.

Now the rabid, mouth-frothing, socialistic gun prohibitionists are bent on burning what they say is an archaic document. To put it crudely, these constitutional-repeal advocates are like wolverines; what they can't eat or screw, they piss on.

Still, politicians and empire-builders everywhere like to call their black-hearted legislation "gun control". They are actually the "people controllers" or "social engineers".

Vin Suprynowicz, a columnist for the "Las Vegas Review-Journal", likes to think of them as "rape enablers".

In the aftermath of Terrorist Tuesday, U.S. President George W. Bush and Canada Prime Minister Jean Chretien reacted predictably, but in reverse of what they should have done.

They plan to impose worse police-state restrictions on the law-abiding citizenry of both nations than were already in place before the Attack on America.

Both should have passed war-measures acts decreeing that every sane, able-bodied adult, who has been or could be trained to handle a gun properly, would be issued a firearm in the name of national security and self-protection.

Instead, Congress and Parliament want to pass more oppressive laws to invade the privacy of innocents who aren't the enemy.

Obviously, both governments--which are simply other people like you and me--distrust their own patriotic people more than they fear the enemy.

Bush should have gone for a midnight stroll in the Rose Garden. He could have considered contracting the Mofia and several biker gangs who break knee caps for collection agencies on weekends. They could go out among the throngs and pluck out a few bad apples without disrupting the routine flow of commerce and ordinary people.

Instead, Bush was led down the garden path in his decision to inflict the claptrap left over from the Democrats on the good people of his nation. He announced, God forbid, an Office of Homeland Security.

Also predictable, the majority of people accepted the government's false promise of "security". It trumped "freedom", which is the easiest thing to give away and the hardest thing to get back.

A high percentage of those polled were ostensibly prepared to give up civil liberties because their brain-sloshed minds believe the outlandish gibberish that their "small" sacrifice will somehow make them "safer".

Legislators go mad during periods of public hysteria and pass irrational people-control laws. Or, in the case of Chretien, he can just sign off a bunch of orders-in-council in the name of anti-terrorism.

It's one of those feel-good laws that will do nothing to thwart terrorism. Criminals won't play by his rules.

What it will do is offer added measures for the state to seize personal bank accounts and other valuables. The state will remove your rights to join and retain membership in clubs and organizations of your choice.

You will lose your right to assemble and to travel freely. The state will take away the freedom to worship in accordance with your own conscience.

You will be fingerprinted, footprinted, vaccinated with an identification code, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) sampled, and be under constant scanning and filming surveillance. Your every movement and every word will be recorded.

You will have to produce ID on every street corner and at frequent Check Point Charlies. Security guards will have the licence to paw through your underwear while you're still in it. Of course, nobody's going to be abused.

"After the threat recedes," warns Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser, "individual rights and freedoms remain diminished.

"Firearm owners serve as a convenient 'devil' for the government to justify passing new legislation," continued Dr. Mauser in "Firearm Registration and the Slippery Slope in Canada" that appeared in the March issue of "Fraser Forum".

A frightened public supports new restrictions on their individual freedom because the government claims it needs more power to deal with the threat, he added.

He went on to emphasize that the firearms legislation has already broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and expands the types of officials who can make use of such powers that allow police to enter homes without search warrants.

Now, Canada has hastily-architected an anti-terrorist bill without defining the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" which means we all are one and engaged in it.

An historical pattern shows suspected anarchist were arrested without warrants and immigrants deported after World War I.

During World War II, American and Canadian citizens of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned or interned in work camps for the duration of the war.

All citizens of Hitler's Germany, who were not members in good-standing with the Nazi Party, had already been rendered helpless through victim disarmament.

Why do Bush and Chretien want to punish those who didn't commit any sins? Why don't both governments give the citizenry the dignity to protect themselves?

Then the U.S. and its allies (I assume Canada is one) can go play war games and wipe out all the religious freaks, green zealots and those who massacre little children at play.

They are the bad bastards who take advantage of Western freedom and democracy while maliciously working toward dismantling an industrial and capitalistic society, which they despise because we love it.

For some inexplicable reason, the liberal mainstream media, legislators, empire-builders, armed enforcers, connivers, snivelers, whiners and environmental-influence peddlers have the unmitigated audacity to go alone with the "safer" nation poppycock. They want to binge on rendering the citizenry completely helpless and subservient.

But there's still a good percentage of silent stalwarts who will not submit any further to invasion of privacy or to victim disarmament without a fight. Bring on the Mofia; bring out the bikers.

Increased defencelessness and decreased civil rights are not the right answers to winning wars against terrorists of any ilk.

To paraphase Caesar, each individual human being still has the ability to light at least one tiny candle rather than just cursing the darkness that is about to swallow this once safe and secure nation, which is now oh, so vulnerable to Communism.

- 30 -