Quote of the day—Bill Blair

What we’ve done in the legislation is really create the set of circumstances and conditions that will facilitate the buy-back.

We are eliminating all legal use of these prohibited firearms. They can’t be legally discharged. You can’t fire them. You can’t take them hunting or to a range. They can’t sell them or transport them. They can’t bequeath them or trade them in any way. They will be required to store them in a very secure safe or vault.

I think the vast majority of people who bought these guns to use as firearms, now that there is no legal way to do that, they’ll be highly incentivized to surrender them for destruction, and then we’ll have a fair compensation program available to them.

Bill Blair
Canada Public Safety Minister
February 16, 2021
Bill Blair says new gun bill will help keep handguns off the streets without a federal ban
[It would seem to me that some incentives, and a fair compensation program, need to be given to Blair and company to respect the rights of the people.—Joe]

17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bill Blair

  1. What exactly is the difference between “eliminating all legal use of these prohibited firearms” and “a federal ban”?

    I know this is happening in Canada, but even the Canucks have limits, and Bill Blair is goose-stepping towards the trip-wire.

  2. Agreed, he is also counting on those law abiding subjects (it is Canada) to keep the public domain free of these weapons.

    He’s failing to include or consider the non law abiding sector of society, whom in my experience commits almost all the crime, not the rule followers.

    This is about control, not safety.

    Jeff B.

      • Absolutely, Lyle. Law enforcement will go to great lengths to confiscate the barely-running 10-22 from some guy who raised his voice at his wacko girlfriend. But they’ll let known felon rap singers hand out AR15s from the trunk of his car to any yahoo that upholds the BLM cause in Seattle – no bg checks, no FFL, no state registration….

  3. If you’re in a country without a Constitution, or with a meaningless one, you don’t have a whole lot of recourse when evil politicians pull a stunt like this.

    While the US Constitution is generally despised and dishonored by politicians of all three branches, once in a while it serves as somewhat of a brake on this sort of abuse.

    • oh, you mean…like America…we don’t have a constitution any more…it’s just paper…really old paper…doesn’t mean anything…some old guys wrote down some crap…

    • Always remember that our rights don’t come from the Constitution but from God or nature. (Founders said it both ways.) The Constitution simply prohibits government from infringing those rights. If they ignore the prohibition, it doesn’t make the rights go away.

      • Precisely. In fact, the right to keep and bear arms is protected from government interference THREE ways: by article 1 section 8, by the 2nd Amendment, and by the 9th Amendment.
        For that matter, it’s protected against state interference two ways: by the 2nd Amendment, and the 14th Amendment. (Yes, the 2nd. The words are clear. The courts pervert it, of course, but that’s what they do because they are lawyers. Occasionally they get it right, as in the example of the Texas Supreme Court, somewhere in the 1840s or 1850s. Stephen Halbrook mentions the case, I think.)

  4. If, as a black person, you are banned from riding public transportation in any meaningful way, cannot own property, can’t vote, and cannot earn or save any money, I think you would be highly incentivized to come back to the plantation and toil happily as a slave.
    Those folks in the Gulags stepped happily onto the cattle cars, I’m sure. It was the brightest option ahead of them!

    • Unless you were armed, and you and your black friends outnumbered the white enforcers 10 to 1?
      That could make it sporting!
      As for cattle cars. The best option is always to be a delusional armed Christian nut-job, that hates evil more than evil loves life.
      Scares the piss out of street level tyrants.

  5. Coming soon to a congress near you! Incentivized? Wonder how many armed incentivists it would take to rob the local tyrants buy-back program?
    Think Mr. Bill is going to love the smell of “incentive” in the morning? Should Canada suddenly grow a pair?
    Looks like were about to find out if Canadians are more french-english?
    Or American?

  6. What this actually does, is it removes the disincentive to use these items in an unapproved manner. If you’re gonna go to jail anyway, might as well go big.

    • After the first one, the rest are free.

      “They” _really_ need to think about that line. If the “first one” is mere possession of the tool, there is (as you say) little disincentive to not just go ahead and use the tool to remove the problem, i.e. to remove those who made possession of the tool the “first one.” That just might make their replacements rethink the issue. If not, repeated use of the tool will eventually solve the “problem.”

  7. I must say when I was hunting in Canada in the 90’s and until 2001, there were plenty of “illegal” hand guns being kept in homes by otherwise law abiding citizens.

    I will be the first to admit most of my time was in Alberta, BC and the NWT which is the Great White Northern equivalent to fly over country, Vancouver being the exception.

    Canada also tried a national gun registry that finally gave up the ghost after a few billion loonies.

    Politicians always think they can legislate compliance and are stunned when they find out they can be just as easily ignored .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.