From the National post and a posted comment…


National Post


Posted: April 17, 2009, 10:14 PM by Paul Russell

A letter in today’s National Post advocates for more gun control. The writer speaks from first-hand experience, as she recalls a day when, “My ex-partner held a registered gun out in front of me and told me that his face would be the last sight I would ever see.”

Her letter brought in this response. While some readers may find it offensive, it shows how deep the divide is that separates the two sides in the gun control debate. Here’s the rebuttal:

Removing a firearm from a home doesn’t provide women with an advantage when that is about all they could, theoretically, use to defend themselves. Most women are smaller, lighter and weaker than most men and so an unarmed woman facing an unarmed male is at a distinct disadvantage. Had the firearm been in her hand, as opposed to that of her husband, I suspect Ms Aubry’s belligerent ex-partner would have been considerably less violent, or possibly dead. Either way she would not have been a victim.

Women are always stressing their desire to be self-confident, responsible and independent individuals. Without a handgun in their purse, this wish is simply wishful thinking. Instead of gun-control, they should be lobbying the federal government to start issuing Type III Authorizations to Carry to every Possession and Acquisition Restricted licence holder in Canada who asks for one.

Frank Hilliard




My wife has a CPL. The Michigan version of an ATC.

She did not get it overnight. Many hours were spent getting her comfortable and confident with a sidearm.

After a few months we got her enrolled in a course to properly learn how to act within and understand the the law should, God forbid, she ever had to.

I encourage any and all women to take a moment to consider that they alone are responsible for their personal safety.

To what degree they wish to take measures is their own personal intimate decision.

Women should not be denied the opportunity or any tools/technology available to exercise their inalienable rights as human beings.

Those rights which are part of the Charter under Section 7.

“Learned interpretations” should not be the final say. Nor should agents of the government hide behind the provision that says “may issue”. They are not a supreme deity (pick yours) and it raises the question about their morailty and values when they “play God” over another person’s life.

The final say should rest with a responsible, reasonable and properly educated individual.

Legislators should and must acknowledge individual persons and amend or enact legislation that affirms and strengthens the rights of individual persons.

If you took a serious look at groups like IANSA, CACP and the Coalition for Gun Control? They weaken and encourage the further victimization of women.

Women have made many “equality” gains. These groups completely undermine those gains.

Canada’s women are a very valuable resource. They should be protected by any means necessary and actively participate in that protection.


Don't Tread On Me


About CGN Nightmare

I've been around the block enough to not care about PC idiocy. My writings may cause manginal irritation. That is YOUR problem.
This entry was posted in Educating the Public, Firearms Owning, Carrying and Responsibility, Gun Control is a Mental Disorder and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.