Archive for the ‘Firearms’ Category

First Steps

Sunday, January 29th, 2006

Well, I’ve gone and done it. Today I took my first firearms safety training course at a local range. I did this for two reasons:
- I take safety very seriously.
- I’m looking to buy firearms and I needed a place to get started.

Safety is extremely important when it comes to firearms. I’d rather not end up dead. In addition, I want to avoid starting with bad habits. The best way to do that is to start with professional instruction. I had a senior NRA instructor leading the class, not that it was required. Half of the class (at least it seems like it was) was focused on which end of the gun the bullet comes out of. Well, now I have a certificate stating that I have taken a safety course.

I was able to fire off 15 rounds of 9mm today. I will say that TV doesn’t do justice to the amount of BANG! that you get from even a small firearm. I will admit that I flinch a wee bit when using one of them. Right now I’m a computer geek who spends most of my time in an office where the sound of a hard drive is the loudest thing I can hear. OK, maybe a need a new keyboard. But the principle holds.

In other news, I purchased my NRA membership last weekend. One of my coworkers and I went to the gun show. He kept poking me in the back until I agreed to sign up. Yay. Done. Now I just have to wait for my magazines to show up in the mail. The NRA isn’t perfect, but at least they are a step in the right direction. They are interested in both rights of owners and citizens as well as real firearms safety.

Why I Left Canada

Sunday, December 18th, 2005

I’ve been asked by a number of people why I was so interested in leaving the US. After all, I resided in Canada and my entire life was Canadian: driver’s license, education, credit history, much of my family. So what went wrong?

I’d been toying with living in the US for a long time, becoming a citizen of the world (or at least North America) as it were. However, my desire was brought about by a chance encounter on the city bus. I’m the kind of guy who likes to talk to other people, to understand what their life is like, just in passing. So, given half an hour to chat with a lady who was a nurse at one of our local hospitals, I asked her something along the lines of “what is the biggest challenge in your field” or some such thing. The answer that I received was some sort of screed against government funding cuts for medical care, a wish for more money ending with the question “do you agree?” I didn’t, and told her so.

The responce that I gave her was “No, I prefer a private system.” I was prepared for the usual rhetorical ‘but think of the children’ bit, or something about not caring about other people. The responce I received I still remember to this day was “you want a system like they have in the ‘States?” She proceded to tell me how bad health care was in Canada. My head spun trying to figure out what she meant. I did not bring up the US, she did. And, no, I don’t want a health care system like is currently in the United States - I want something better. That’s right, private and BETTER.

Unfortunately, the only options she could comprehend were the US system and the Canadian system. Not even an acceptance of the British dual-system. It was one or another. That opened my eyes. After all, if something as simple as the state of her own profession in our major trading parteners was too difficult to understand, what could I possibly hope every-day people to understand? “American” is to Canada the way “Communist” is the United States - it shuts down conversation and makes discourse impossible. Labeling such as that provides a great way for people to not think about possibilities. After all, everything American (or Communist) is automatically bad.

The next issue revolves around the coddling attitude of the Canadian government. There are countless examples, but my personal favorite is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC for short. This is the equivalent to the US FCC. Most of their job relies around ensuring that communications equipment conforms to technical specifications and doesn’t cause harmful interference. However, one little area of responsibility does irk me: content quotas. You see, and TV of radio station in Canada is required to air a certain amount of ‘Canadian content’, roughly 30% in total. What this means in practice is that there are Canadian versions of all of the big US channels. A good example is the Discovery channel (also known as the Jay Ingram full-employment channel). The Canadian discovery channel shows much of the same programming as the US version, except that in order to fulfill content requirements they show several hours of Canadian content which largely amounts to not-quite-brilliant people talking to researchers about there most recent discoveries. It’s not bad programming, its just that it’s not good. It looks budget, and for a reason. It’s their to fulfill content requirements. It’s good enough that they can sell commercials to cover production, but that’s about it.

When Fox news wanted to come into Canada, they were told that they could not without sufficient Canadian content. They said no (CNN was already grandfathered in). So Fox news wasn’t shown in the country, except for one feed at parliament. I started to get the feeling that we were in soviet Russia - the government will view and “protect” us from harmful ideas. How wonderful. I’m not particularly a fan of Fox News - I think the O’Reilly factor is compelling, even if I do not agree with all of the views expressed. Nonetheless, there is a difference between likeing something and thinking that people should be able to access something. Needless to say, I was not impressed with the government at that point.

Next up is the issue of Canadian identity. The United States models itself in spirit after the phrase in the Declaration of Independence “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.” So I ask, what is the Canadian version. What uniquely defines the Canadian spirit. The most popular version refers to the Canadian Constitution residual powers clause which states that the government is responsible for “peace, order, and good government.” Not only does it lack pizazz, but in mind wind translates in diplo-government speak to “sit down, shut up and do what you’re told.” Even my political science professors were at a loss. Certainly, there are a lot of descriptive options available, such as “from sea to western sea” (read: pile of dirt surrounded by water). There is also “bi-national country” (read: just like Czechoslovakia - oh, wait). Unfortunately, the real definition is far more obvious; just ask any citizen. Canada is not the United States. In fact, more time is spent pounding that point than actually any real discussion of ideas that you could run a complete second country on the time used.

Which brings me to the most flamboyant reason for leaving Canada. Guns. Yes, I’ll say it again. Guns. Specifically the ability to carry a pistol. It brings a new meaning the the phrase “isthat a rocket in your pocket?” As a matter of fact, yes! I view self-defense as a corolory to the right to life. This must further be extended to the right to posses the means of self-defence required. Am I paranoid? Perhaps. However, in Canada this is not possible.

When I speak to people, they believe that I am a homicidal manic for desiring such power. But worse than that, it makes me an American. Which is technically true, but once again shuts down debate. Argue with me over the point if you don’t agree with me, just don’t ignore me. But it gets worse. I decided that I should give the government of Canada and opportunity to make right wrongs. I phone up my member of parliement and asked what I would need to do in order to have a law passed which would allow for concealed carry. I was told that the Minister of Justice did not want any such action as it could endanger police officers. Who are the police officers there to protect? The people. Suddenly the people can’t be trusted with anything dangerous because it makes their job more difficult. This isn’t being protected by the police, this is becoming subservient TO the police.

I have left Canada not because it doesn’t offer what I want, but because I can’t argue in favor of what I want. Firearms are the most obvious example. I can’t do what I want because it’s American. Because it’s dangerous. Because I might poke someone’s eye out with it. So, instead I take the only reasonable recourse. I left. And now the United States is going to get a healthy, well educated engineer at no charge (we’ll even throw in a set of wiper blades). I’m not going back. At least not until there is a major culture shift. Then, maybe just then, I might go back.

Meeting with MP

Monday, March 7th, 2005

The Member of Parliament who was to show up to my morning class did not make it, so I was unable to lobby him about firearms carrying rights. However, he made a slightly later flight and I met up with him at an open session he held in the campus coffee house.

The gathering started at 2:30 with a little prepared material based on topics that the local conservative club wanted him to address. He’s about 30 and very charismatic. About half way through at about 3:15 or so the inevitable happened - gay marriage was brought up. It was fun to watch, though that wasn’t why I was there.

At about 4:10 the last question was asked and so I made my way up to speak with him. I’d spoken to the MP’s handler ahead of time and managed to get about 15 minutes of time set up. We sat down on the once-plush oversized chairs we have and talked.

He informed me that he himself is very interested in firearms ownership and suggested that I start a formal lobbying effort. He has a strategy session for the Conservative party set up for tonight which I will be goign to (just invided based upon the issue). Also, he suggested that there may be a way to get around the transport-only wording in legislation by using a lock box just large enough for the firearm. I will post more later about this issue.