The Shotgun Blog
« SC Gov. Mark Sanford was cheating on his wife | Main | Wildrose Alliance officially welcomes candidates to leadership race and announces candidate for Calgary Glenmore by-election »
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
First they took our guns, then they took our cars
In yet another flagrant attack on personal liberties in the province, the Alberta government announced a series of measures to remove armoured vehicles from the roads:
As of July 1, gang members will be hit where it hurts with a new law that removes their illegally armoured vehicles from Alberta roads.
An armoured vehicle is a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to protect its occupants from weapon assault such as gunfire, explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades. After-market modifications generally add significant weight to a vehicle and if the weight is not offset by an enhanced engine, suspension, steering and brakes, the vehicle is unsafe and poses a risk to public safety.…
The amendment to the Vehicle Equipment Regulation under the Traffic Safety Act allows peace officers to require an armoured vehicle to undergo a safety inspection. If the vehicle does not pass the inspection, the vehicle can be removed from the road and the driver(s) can be charged. Charges require a mandatory court appearance and the individual could face a penalty of up to $2,000 and six months in jail.…
Legitimate uses for compliant armoured vehicles such as military, policing, and transportation of valuable goods are not impacted by this legislation.
I am against gun control on purely libertarian grounds, but I understand where the other side is coming from. It is beyond me, however, how anyone could think it's a good idea to take away our means of protecting ourselves from these weapons. This is the nanny-state at its finest, big brother is watching out for you, so there's no need to protect yourself.
The government is, apparently, taking these steps to help combat gang violence. To be sure, innocent civilians can be caught in the crossfire of the gang wars that have permeated Alberta streets. Yet, an armoured vehicle would seem like a good way to ensure that stray bullets don't end up hurting you or your family while you're on the road. Forgive me if I don't want to rely on the state to protect my right to life.
Government will always come up with reasons to outlaw things it doesn't like. I, for one, am sick of governments impeding on my liberties in the name of protecting children, or cracking down on gangs. "I'd like to protect children too, but… is everything worth sacrificing to that? I mean, drugs have done a lot of good… lot of great songs, you know?… I think Dark Side of the Moon is worth 100 dead kids," said comedian Bill Maher. Just because these regulations will piss off gang members, does not make them good.
Even if these measures help prevent armoured vehicles from falling into the hands of gangs, will it not just lead to more dead people? Shouldn't our public policy be focused on saving lives, rather than making it easier to get killed? Can anyone give me a good reason why I shouldn't be able to drive an armoured vehicle if I choose to do so?
Posted by Jesse Kline on June 24, 2009 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
Comments
"Government will always come up with reasons to outlaw things it doesn't like. I, for one, am sick of governments impeding on my freedoms in the name of protecting children..."
Yeah! Let's legalize child rape while we're at it! Just because we don't like it and it protects children are no reasons to restrict the liberty of pedophiles to do what they want! Fuck the kids! Literally!
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-24 9:37:51 PM
That's a horrible analogy Fact Check. Liberty gives one the right to do what they please as long as they don't hurt others. Rape obviously hurts someone. Armour does not.
Posted by: Jesse Kline | 2009-06-24 9:41:10 PM
Jesse, take one: "I, for one, am sick of governments impeding on my freedoms in the name of protecting children..."
Jesse, take two: "Liberty gives one the right to do what they please as long as they don't hurt others."
Quod erat demonstrandum. Yer an idjit.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-24 10:00:40 PM
Alright Fact Check, in the interest of being consistent, I have changed the word from "freedoms" to "liberties." Now please try to stick to posting reasoned arguments, rather than stupid comments.
Vestri mom est a meretricis
Posted by: Jesse Kline | 2009-06-24 10:19:10 PM
This is a bit contradictory. The gang members must wear seatbelts, to help take pressure off the healthcare system, but something that can lighten the load on emergency rooms is outlawed?
As they said, there are legitimate uses for armoured vehicles. These gangsters can probably afford to build them right, and they won't be any more dangerous than all those overloaded pickup trucks, and beat up service vans. It's not like they're installing weapons.
Are they also going to outlaw roll cages? After all, anyone who installs a roll cage must be planning on street racing.
I'd never consider allowing my kid to carry a gun to school, but if he attended a dangerous school, I'd consider buying some protective clothing.
What they're really saying here, is the gangsters should kill each other, as quickly, and efficiently as possible. There's no use wasting a gun fight. There might as well be dead gangsters.
I don't disagree with that notion, but I wish they'd be honest about it. Let the gangs know the value of their lives is less than that of honest, and innocent citizens.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-24 10:38:03 PM
man oh man you Libertarians are a bit much. The law is to stop drug gangs using these vehicles for criminal activiy.
Why would a ordinary citizen that is not a dignatery or such need an armoured vehicle???
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-24 10:38:40 PM
Fact Check, your NDP is showing again. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to why we should be denied something that never takes lives, but merely protects them? And see if you can do it without conjuring up visions of child porn.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-24 10:44:00 PM
"Why would a ordinary citizen that is not a dignatery or such need an armoured vehicle???"
This is not a communist country, Merle. The standard is not "to each according to his needs," but "to each according to his wishes," providing he can pay for it, of course.
If people without criminal records can still access these vehicles, you have a case. If it's a blanket ban, as most Canadian bans seem to be, then you don't.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-24 10:46:03 PM
Merle- Why the hell would a dignitary need an armoured vehicle in Calgary? If they're controversial enough to attract assasination attempts, they shouldn't be here. Not driving around town, anyway. That would be a definite traffic hazard.
If they're going to draw the line, do it right.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-24 10:46:59 PM
So the obvious answer for the criminal is to have the armoured vehicle properly constructed. Then it becomes the same scenario as having big rigs properly inspected to ensure that they are safe on the roads. This law will accomplish nothing.
Posted by: DML | 2009-06-24 11:06:34 PM
dp,
If someone is under threat, say for having integrity, Calgary will reward their persecutors by refusing to allow them to protect themselves within city limits.
Strange.
I find this legislation strange. If a vehicle poses a dynamical danger, if it is not fit for the road, then fine. But if it is fit for traffic, there is no reason it should be regulated differently from body armor.
Speaking of which, I noticed criminals wearing body armor in public in calgary a few months ago. Like tattoos, they help identify who they are. Makes for an easier target for the law.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-06-24 11:18:39 PM
Why would a ordinary citizen that is not a dignatery or such need an armoured vehicle???
To be honest, I don't have an armored vehicle, nor am I planning on getting one. However, I don't presume to impose my preferences on others. I cannot think of any way in which someone having an armored vehicle would hurt me. Can you find a reason why we should crack down on them?
Posted by: Jesse Kline | 2009-06-24 11:26:39 PM
Since armoured cars are all custom built it would not take rocket science to check out the proud new owner and find out why he/she needs one.If the reason given make sense, then why not? Perhaps the simple solution is a permit much like owning a hand gun.
I don't see where this type of vehicle is a danger to anyone or anything. If it keeps the paranoid segment of the population happy then go for it. The druggies will certainly find other ways to get rid of each other.
Just another stupid law by people with too much time on their hands.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-06-24 11:34:50 PM
Why would a ordinary citizen that is not a dignatery or such need an armoured vehicle???
You are asking entirely the wrong question. Why would an ordinary citizen "need" sports cars? You don't ban everything and allow things based on "need". You allow people to do whatever they want and only restrict them based on an infringement on the rights of another.
The law is to stop drug gangs using these vehicles for criminal activiy.
The intention of the law is not relevant. It is the effect that is important. This action, in itself, of armoring a car does not harm anyone and is not unlawful. Is it such a foreign concept that only actual crimes should be criminal?
Prohibition of an object is an ironic solution to a problem caused largely by prohibition (of drugs). Next step: banning everything except "anti-stab" knives. THAT will finally actually deal with gang crime. At least until they learn how to sharpen spoons...
Posted by: Shane | 2009-06-24 11:54:54 PM
Must be the "libertarian" conservatives passing this "small government" law in Alberta eh? What a bunch of stupid assholes. Again we have the state taking away our freedoms in exchange for some imagined safety.
He who would give up freedom for security deserves neither.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-25 8:34:01 AM
"He who would give up freedom for security deserves neither."
Getting stoned isn't one of the protected freedoms. Protecting one's self, one's people, and one's goods, is.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-25 2:14:51 PM
The meddling of collectivists never ceases, for they will always find yet another thing to ban. This does nothing to protect citizens from crime. It is about being suspected of committing a crime. If these individuals are committing crimes, then why are they not arrested and charged?
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-25 3:15:02 PM
Yeah! Let's legalize child rape while we're at it! Just because we don't like it and it protects children are no reasons to restrict the liberty of pedophiles to do what they want! Fuck the kids! Literally!
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-24 9:37:51 PM
Tiny minded, nasty moron.
naturally "Fact Check" misses the point completely.
The overall is that the state will advance its agenda in "bullet proof vehicles" like human rights, gay rights, war on drugs, bringing them democracy, security, public education...and on and on...
Because these methods work well. The majority of us are really quite fooled by the idea that government is "benevolent". It is not.
These politicians and their financial puppet masters don't give a flying f**k about you or me.
To them we are sheep to be fleeced and they've got the best gig in town. And by God they'll protect it and themselves...and that's why they dumb down the kids in schools, tax us nearly out of existence and want our guns.
They're protecting themselves...not you.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-25 8:37:08 PM
He who would give up freedom for security deserves neither.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-06-25 8:34:01 AM
As far as I know there are no Libertarians in the Alberta government. And the CONservatives here are nothing like Libertarians... They're Liberal "lite". A very opposite thing.
And what you said above re: security...is a Libertarian Standard. TY. :)
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 3:34:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.