Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae is the perfect Liberal. He hates his fellow citizens and believes the State should, indeed MUST be all-powerful, especially when it comes to a monopoly of force. It is the state and ONLY the state who should be able to use force to repel attackers, not mere citizens.
For those of us of the lesser class, i.e. not a Liberal politician or a Prime Ministerial wannabe, and who must rely on ourselves and not armed bodyguards of the state, the Ian Thompson case takes on very special significance. If he is convicted of the unsafe storage charges he currently faces, then the rest of us too, are doomed, should our lives be threatened as his was.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock recently, you’ll know that in the early morning hours of August 22, 2010, Port Colborne, Ontario resident Ian Thomson used a legally-owned and registered handgun to fire warning shots over the heads of the three murderous cretins (no relation to our former prime minister) who were attempting to kill him by burning down Mr. Thomson’s home with him inside it.
The police and Crown prosecutors have decided that saving his own life is not acceptable behaviour. Instead, Crown prosecutors seem to be content that Ian Thomson should have dialed 9-1-1 and then promptly died at the hands of his attackers, like a good little sheeple.
A police officer actually had the gall to say that Thomson was able to retrieve his firearms “too quickly”, therefore he was obviously guilty of the unsafe storage of firearms.
It’s an asinine comment and an even more asinine conclusion to draw. Ian Thomson’s life was in immediate and imminent danger from three men caught on video cameras screaming death threats and tossing Molotov cocktails at his home. It was only his ability to retrieve his firearms and fire a couple of warning shots to scare off his would-be murderers that allows Ian Thomson to be alive to suffer the abusive prosecution he is currently facing, not to mention the moronic comments of that policeman and now Bob Rae.
This is beyond absurd. If an inmate inside a maximum security prison can use a concealed weapon to kill another inmate according the the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Kerr, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371, 2004 SCC 44), then why can’t a man with no criminal record and a legally-owned firearms defend his life against three men actively trying to murder him?
Interim Liberal Party Leader and Chief Fantasy-land Dweller Bob Rae believes that what Ian Thomson did is best characterized as “vigilantism”, making Bob Rae about the only Canadian who is this mind-numbingly stupid.
The “Anointed One” himself, Justin Trudeau, is well in the running for Bob Rae’s title and while he has definitely attempted to place himself in position to reach the pinnacle that Rae currently holds, the younger and less intelligent Trudeau is still a few paces away.
Trudeau recently tweeted that the “first one to bring up Hitler in a debate loses”, a reference to MP Larry Miller’s comments in Parliament the other day.
The Liberal Party of Canada is either on the mend or on the verge of total collapse. At the moment it’s hard to know which, but there are some telling signs readily available for all to see. If Bob Rae or Justin Trudeau are the next party leader, the collapse is inevitable. Hangers on to ideas long tossed on the garbage dump of history, neither man has the ability or the vision to lead their party out of the dungeon of Canadian politics it currently occupies.
Both men would, it seems, rather see good, decent Canadians murdered, guns safely locked away and useless, rather than have any of us mere citizens use those firearms to successfully save our own lives from imminent attack by murderous criminals.
A few definitions are in order, even though the likes of Bob Rae are too high and mighty to bother referring to a dictionary. Or to use the Common Sense that God gave a gnat, for that matter.
Self-Defense is doing whatever is necessary to ensure your own survival when faced with immediate and lethal danger. This is precisely what Ian Thomson did in the early morning hours when three men were attempting to murder him.
Vigilantism is where an individual or group of individuals take the law into their own hands and mete out justice, real or imagined, on those they see deserving of it, again, real or imagined.
That Bob Rae confuses the two shows his utter inability to comprehend reality, and his complete willingness to live in a fantasy land the rest of us can’t even see.
“Not everybody is William Tell,” Bob Rae said, referring to the legendary marksman. “We don’t want to encourage vigilante responses from people.”
I can guarantee you that there are Canadians living in fantasy-land, and Bob Rae is chief among them.
Ian Thomson, however, is not one of them. He does not live in Rae’s fantasy land.
Unlike the moronic Bob Rae, Ontario’s Ian Thomson lives in the real world where defending himself from murder was actually required. He would be dead if he hadn’t done so.
I suppose Rae would consider it better if Thomson had shot the would-be murderers. Anything appears to be better than firing warning shots to scare them away.
I will never comprehend the minds of Bob Rae and those like him who believe that while they stand on their high moral horses surrounded with armed bodyguards of the state, we mere citizens should be disarmed and left utterly defenseless at the very instant our lives need defending most. The agents of the state are, of course, never on scene at those times, are they?
Bob Rae, just like other rabid “gun-control” advocates, would apparently rather see a woman raped and murdered, rather than see her standing over her dead attacker, a smoking gun in her hand.
Clearly Rae would prefer to see Ian Thomson’s charred corpse found in the burned-out shell of his home than Thomson actually survive the attack by defending himself with a firearm.
Vigilantism? Hardly. Self-Defense? Absolutely.
Mr. Rae, I must assume, completely agrees with the actions of Ontario’s Crown Prosecutors as well.
While the Crown has gone after Mr. Thomson with a vengeance, it is interesting to note that none of the men who actually tried to kill Mr. Thomson were ever charged with attempted murder, the crime they were actually committing.
Then again, they weren’t using firearms to commit their crime, were they?
No, it’s Mr. Thomson who is guilty of a crime and should be sent to prison, not the men who actually tried to murder him, right Mr. Rae?
Author
-
Christopher di ArmaniChristopher di Armani is a freedom-loving Amazon bestselling author and current events commentator from Lytton, BC, Canada, who strives to awaken the passion for liberty inside every human being.
6th paragraph from the end..”just like other *rapid* “gun-control” advocates…”
Maybe “rabid”?
Other than that, another fine rant. Fix the spelling/usage error so I can share it on FaceBook, k?
Thanks for catching that, Albert! It’s fixed, so share away. (And thanks very much for doing so!)
Thanks Chris. I think you were too kind in your descriptions of Rae and Turdeau. I did send you a copy of a letter I wrote to the editor on the subject, not published of course. Yet the idiotic statements are worse that that. They have a death wish for all productive and self reliant people. Even worse, although they may not realize it, they have a death wish of their own and their statements show a complete lack of morality. After all, Ian Thomson performed the most moral act of all, protecting the sanctity of his own life and the imminent torturous death of his animals and loss of his home. There is NO morality shown by Rae. I did notice the seeming spelling error, but thought that rather than the “foamy mouth” kind exhibited by Rae, I read it to mean the “rapid” descent into immorality they so clearly demonstrated by their words.
I have only a few criticisms of Mr. Ian Thomson’s actions. Yes he actually should have shot at his attackers, if his warning shots had hit anyone else, he’d be responsible for their injury, maiming and/or death. From what I have heard, and yes it is hearsay, a constable (or was it a sergeant) once told a friend of mine that so long as the entry wounds are in the front, it is self defense.
I’m not advocating that he should have shot at his assailants with the intent to kill. However if you purposefully aim at your attacker, you are less likely to run the risk of missing and hitting someone else, an innocent. I would hope that Mr. Thomson would not want to do that.
As to waiting for the police to arrive, frankly, as much as I admire those of our civil servants who work hard to fight crime, there are frankly too few and they cannot be everywhere that they are needed.
I concur with the author here, that Mr. Thomson’s actions were in self-defense and that Mr. Rae is confusing the issue when he calls it vigilantism. Rae and Trudeau need to learn the difference.
Expecting a citizen to sit and wait for the state is like expecting someone in a car that is skidding on black ice to not make the effort to regain control of the vehicle. It is foolish and it is unsafe for society as a whole.
Ray’s dumbass rant is Right up there with the leftist Cotler rant against Millers Hitler Comment.. But in this case, ‘some’ of what Cotler said was very true!
Irwin Cotler: “On this point, let there be no mistake about it: Hitler did not take away guns from Jews, Mr. Speaker, Hitler murdered Jews, who had no guns. Any suggestion otherwise is odious and obscene.”
It would seem that Cotler agrees that it’s less likely you will be murdered if your armed.. How embarrassing it must be for him, as a Liberal, to let the truth slip out like he did..