Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Libertarian abortion compromise (safe, legal, rare...and de-insured) could be tough to implement | Main | Beaverhill Lake fire: exclusive Western Standard photos and interview »

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Run Mercer! Run!

It sounds like what Rick Mercer fears more than a maniac on a stabbing rampage are women, minorities, and us gays being self-reliant and able to defend ourselves.

It was those crazy women and gays in that backwater village of Washington, D.C. that stood up as strong individuals to say that the city handgun ban in the nation’s capital put them at disproportionate risk of being victims of attacks. Instead of asking for some kind of handout, they demanded the freedom to stop being victims.

If this kind of freedom-talk just sounds like more “rage”, I will put it in a more compassionate language for the sensitive urbanite to digest: Women and gays, I'm told, love to shop. Concealed carry weapons laws would give them another wonderful accessory to shop for. Just think, women could have their sexy little subcompact Beretta Tomcat pistol for their Prada handbag, while us "homos" could add another dimension to our sexual innuendo-laced conversations. It would make a great theme for Toronto Fashion Week -- "Hick Meets Chic." And I can’t wait for all the conversations I’ll have after I get my .44 Magnum Colt Anaconda revolver -- talking about cocking action and ejector rods over martinis with friends.

As for the other deep-seated rage issues, thanks for setting me straight -- no pun intended. Supporting free enterprise (abolishing the CBC) and wanting to end native poverty (The Indian Act) aren’t actual policies to be discussed, as I wrongly thought. Thanks to you, Rick (and the mainstream media), I’ve learned they are in fact the first warning signs of that god-awful disease -- conservatism! 

Phew, it’s a good thing I was turfed before anyone else caught it. That being said, I would like to let Mercer know that liberalism has been diagnosed as a mental disorder by Dr. Lyle Rossiter, M.D.  The cure will be released as part of my platform when I run for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

So don’t worry Rick, while you’re running for the exit and screaming like a girl, those of us packing heat will make sure no maniacs are coming after you. Run, Mercer! Run!

Posted by Chris Reid on September 28, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534da797a970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Run Mercer! Run!:

Comments

You seem to be the best example of "I wish I'd said that" I've ever heard. I think it might be contagious, at least I hope so.

Is Mercer upset because you don't fit the mold of his gay friends? Too bad. I'm sure most of us conservatives don't fit the mold of his straight friends either.

As for running for the exit and screaming like a girl, I ask myself that question every day. I can't give you a guarantee I won't run, but I sure hope I have the strength to help a young man in peril. If my government backed me up by allowing me to defend myself, the decision would be a lot easier.

Posted by: dp | 2008-09-28 4:00:30 PM


And yet Tronna people claim that they're so tolerant and peaceful. Pathetic. I say nuke the entire place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure that these people don't spread.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-28 4:13:02 PM


It would be interesting if the taxpayer funded apparatchik cbcers drooled on their very own blogs ala Heather Mallick...imagine if you will, Boag, Champ, Macdonald, Mansbridge, Julie V.D., etc. etc., the whole lot of 'em...uncensored and close-up...on the downside we'd have to finance the hiring of at least a dozen more Vince Carlins'.

Posted by: mahmood | 2008-09-28 4:29:23 PM


1. Is there any reason to believe that the other passengers on the bus could have done anything to prevent the death of Tim McLean? Reports I read indicated that other passengers first noticed something was wrong when the killer was already repeatedly stabbing McLean in the chest. So if it was already too late to save McLean's like, it seems both false and cruel to be angry at the other passengers for not helping.

2. But suppose McLean could have survived if someone could have stopped the killer. Should they then be blamed for not acting? Well, it's one thing to advocate people being armed with guns so they could act when needed to defend someone, but given that these other passengers were not armed and the killer clearly was, it does not seem to obviously be cowardice not to try to intervene. Even cops and soldiers are trained not to recklessly put their lives at risk when they are unarmed.

3. In the blog post that caused the ruckus you compared these passengers unfavourably with the passengers on UA flight 93. But in that case the passengers had time to consider and discuss what to do and to plan a response. They also believed that they would die regardless of what they did. So while it was certainly heroic of them to do what they did, the circumstances are so vastly different from the Greyhound incident that had the same people from UA flight 93 been unarmed and on that bus, I bet they would have done the same thing the actual bus passengers did.

4. As for rage issues, I don't know about either of you, but I do know that Mercer in this column (and even when he does his rants) comes across not as someone who is angry, but as someone just trying to be funny. Your post here and the blog about the Greyhound bus incident do sound angry to me. For what it's worth.

5. You want fashionable guns? How about a fashionable taser as a compromise. You can find ones in pink, hot red, and leopard print here: http://store.nexternal.com/shared/StoreFront/default.asp?CS=tasermerch&StoreType=BtoC&Count1=665279567&Count2=582419991&CategoryID=7&Target=products.asp

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-28 4:32:47 PM


I say nuke the entire place from orbit.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 28-Sep-08 4:13:02 PM

Here's the coordinates to use. Make sure no square inch is missed.
Longitude: 84° 51' W to 88° 28' W
Latitude: 30° 13' N to 35° N

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-28 4:34:22 PM


FC- You're right about the greyhound incident, but you can't blame someone for having an emotional response. Even one of the passengers made a comment right after the incident that the others didn't do enough to help. The fear of death or injury is not our worst fear. Our worst fear is that we'll lack the courage to act if we're needed. This fear gets reinforced every time we lose another freedom.

Every time a cop tells us that vigilantees will be punished more severely than criminals. Every time that we're told if we shoot an armed intruder, we'll be charged with murder. Every time we're told that our property is not worth defending. Every time we're told that owning a weapon makes us as bad as the criminals. Eventually, we're beaten down to the point we just roll over and expose our underbellies.

I don't know about the taser, but I believe pepper spray is one of the greatest life saving tools available. Every adult citizen should be REQUIRED to carry a can of high potency bear spray. That way, everyone knows that they'll be incapacitated if they start something. No one will use it randomly because they know they'll get an eyefull back. Ever notice that skunks rarely fight with each other? It just isn't worth the trouble.

Right now in the maritimes, the bear population is reaching all-time highs. They're getting to be a real problem, and everyone is afraid to do what has to be done. They've been bombarded with anti-gun propaganda for so long down there that they'd rather just let the bears into the fridge than risk killing one and facing the consequences. How do you think they'd react to a gang threat if they can't even handle a bunch of dumb animals?

Posted by: dp | 2008-09-28 5:01:57 PM


Every time a cop tells us that vigilantees will be punished more severely than criminals. Every time that we're told if we shoot an armed intruder, we'll be charged with murder. Every time we're told that our property is not worth defending. Every time we're told that owning a weapon makes us as bad as the criminals. Eventually, we're beaten down to the point we just roll over and expose our underbellies.
Posted by: dp | 28-Sep-08 5:01:57 PM

Very Well said.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-28 5:19:29 PM


As always, the real issue never gets addressed.

''If you think yuppie white boys in striped shirts are doing the beatings you are mistaken,'' read one anonymous post.

Followed by, ''If your racist sensibilities were offended, rest assured that 'suburban' doesn't necessarily mean white or yuppie around here.''

And, ''It is not race baiting to describe identified suspects and assailants, like the six black guys who, in fact, attacked three white gays in Adams Morgan. 

Grow a pair.''

http://beltwaybeast.blogspot.com/2008/09/gays-and-lesbians-opposed-to-violence.html

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-28 5:31:46 PM


dp.........not sure about the rest of the country, but here in wingnut B.C. it is illegal to carry pepper spray for self defence. At the rate we are going it is probably illegal to defend yourself at all against anything.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-09-28 5:32:38 PM


"Past studies have documented the prevalence of black on white sexual aggression in prison.(213) These findings are further confirmed by Human Rights Watch's own research. Overall, our correspondence and interviews with white, black, and Hispanic inmates convince us that white inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse.(214) Although many whites reported being raped by white inmates, black on white abuse appears to be more common. To a much lesser extent, non-Hispanic whites also reported being victimized by Hispanic inmates."

"The causes of black on white sexual abuse in prison have been much analyzed. Some commentators have attributed it to the norms of a violent black subculture, the result of social conditioning that encourages aggressiveness and the use of force.(217) Others have viewed it as a form of revenge for white dominance of blacks in outside society.(218) Viewing rape as a hate crime rather than one primarily motivated by sexual urges, they believe that sexually abused white inmates are essentially convenient surrogates for whites generally. Elaborating on this theory, one commentator surmised that "[i]n raping a white inmate, the black aggressor may in some measure be assaulting the white guard on the catwalk."(219)

Some inmates, both black and white, told Human Rights Watch that whites were generally perceived as weaker and thus more vulnerable to sexual abuse. An African American prisoner, describing the situation of incarcerated whites, said:

When individuals come to prison, they know that the first thing that they will have to do is fight. Now there are individuals that are from a certain race that the majority of them are not physically equip to fight. So they are the majority that are force to engage in sexual acts."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-28 5:39:08 PM


dp.........not sure about the rest of the country, but here in wingnut B.C. it is illegal to carry pepper spray for self defence. At the rate we are going it is probably illegal to defend yourself at all against anything.

Posted by: peterj | 28-Sep-08 5:32:38 PM

Its actually illegal to defend your own life in your own home if you use a gun. Even if the assailants have one. How do ya like them apples?
It all goes back to property rights. Your body is your property...do you have the right to defend it? Ask your MP how he / she feels about that.
See if you get any kind of a straight answer.

And if anyone can tell me I'm wrong, I'll be happy to hear it.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-28 6:12:04 PM


The right to protect or "not allowed" to protect ourselves has been around for a long time. I have come to the conclusion that I will do whatever it takes to protect myself ,my family , and even my property. I will deal with the after effects in front 12 of my peers. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

Posted by: Rob C | 2008-09-28 6:20:46 PM


"As for rage issues, I don't know about either of you, but I do know that Mercer in this column (and even when he does his rants) comes across not as someone who is angry, but as someone just trying to be funny."
I'm assuming that you haven't read the article FC, the part where Mercer says:
"The irony is, that as with most blogs, nobody really read theirs at the time – ordinary Canadians don't spend a lot of time reading blogs because ordinary Canadians know that blogs are basically the domain of idiots, mad people and news anchors." Sounds like a bitter, pissed-off, axe-grinder to me. One on the shameless CBC payroll.

Posted by: Condor | 2008-09-28 6:44:53 PM


ordinary Canadians know that blogs are basically the domain of idiots, mad people and news anchors." Sounds like a bitter, pissed-off, axe-grinder to me. One on the shameless CBC payroll.

Posted by: Condor | 28-Sep-08 6:44:53 PM

Another well put observation.

ordinary Canadians know"

How arrogant of this "comedian" and everyone else at CBC. Telling us what we think, what we know and what concerns "us".
The facts don't bear it out, but it doesn't stop them from saying idiotic things does it?
Burn the Communist Broadcasting Corp.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-28 6:56:22 PM


Where do I donate to the "Reid should Lead" leadership campaign?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-09-28 7:08:07 PM


"The irony is, that as with most blogs, nobody really read theirs at the time – ordinary Canadians don't spend a lot of time reading blogs because ordinary Canadians know that blogs are basically the domain of idiots, mad people and news anchors."

This isn't actually far from the truth (though not universal). The Canadian blogosphere is not nearly as mature as our neighbors to the south. The only problem is sorting out who is an idiot and who is mad. (personally I'd rather be considered mad than an idiot)

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-09-28 8:51:08 PM


Good stuff Chris, and I do appreciate your sense of humour. I have yet to understand why one's sex or sexuality would make one a supporter of the mental disorder of liberalism. After all we all do have a brain to use along with common sense.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-09-28 8:55:34 PM


Condor, JC, Hugh:

The snippet you quote from Mercer is followed *immediately* by the observation that he (Mercer) should know, since he has been blogging for 3 years now. This was *clearly* an attempt at self-depricating humour. Lighten up.

I found most of Mercer's column rather funny, even though I disagreed with much of the message. I find Mercer disagreeable in a "meta" sense: while he often makes good points in a funny way, he too consistently makes more fun of the "right" than the "left," even when the circumstances clearly warrant being even-handed. The manifest bias tends to detract from the humour. The good comedians -- Leno, Carson -- are / were much more even-handed. And let's face it, there is always enough silliness in politics to find humour in all political persuasions.

That being said, Chris's rejoinder was even more funny, because it was simply more funny, and also agreeable ideologically. Is it true (as I have long suspected) that gays have a better sense of humour or a more rapier wit than straights?

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-09-28 11:21:14 PM


"I have yet to understand why one's sex or sexuality would make one a supporter of the mental disorder of liberalism."

It's not liberalism, it's coercion.

"Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force."

Boisson's punishment is not an outcome of liberalism. He is coerced by the state to supplicate himself before a protected group.

"In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint...

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor."

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 12:04:46 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.