Dion Attempts to Trick Voters with Ludicrous Assault Weapons Ban

September 11, 2008 | In Politics |

The National Post editorial board made some good points yesterday about Liberal leader, Stephane Dion’s proposed ban on “military assault weapons.”

Looking at the Liberals’ own press release, it’s pretty obvious that Dion wants to draw a fictional line between “respectable” firearms that government should tolerate (for now anyway), and “scary” firearms that “serve absolutely no purpose in our society.”

I don’t know a lot about firearms (less, I’m sure than whoever wrote the National Post editorial) but I do know stupid policy when I see it.

So called “military assault weapons” are already on the market, and are owned by a wide variety of citizens, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding, but the small minority of whom are not. If Dion gets elected and passes his proposed “Scary Weapons Act,” those few bad guys will gleefully hang on to their scary weapons while law-abiding homeowners are unjustly forced to forfeit their lawfully-acquired property, which may have proved very useful in defending themselves from scary criminals. The stubborn few who refuse to give up their lawfully-acquired property will become honorary scary criminals themselves.

The black market for guns will continue to prosper, just as the black market for drugs prospers, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the overreaching yet grossly ineffective hand of the State. The Liberals’ “war on guns” is morally and practically equivalent to the Conservatives’ “war on drugs.” Both of these policies target and punish peaceful citizens, while enabling and encouraging the real criminals, such as gang members and other violent offenders – those who don’t mind doing actual harm to you and your children.

But it’s not the politicians crafting these policies that are the stupid ones, but the people who accept them. All politicians want to appear “tough on crime,” and try to prove it with inane policies that lull voters into a false sense of security. Creating pre-crimes increases the number of needless convictions and ultimately bullies most dissenters into submission. The one thing it doesn’t do is protect citizens from actual crime.

The only legitimate reason to be “tough on crime” is to protect citizens from real criminals. The only effective way to be “tough on crime” is to be tough on real criminals. Inventing new crimes just doesn’t fit the bill.