March 17, 2015

What Harper said about guns and self-defence that's driving Canada's elite crazy

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder

Official Ottawa and the rest of the Laurentian Elite are losing their collectivist minds over comments PM Stephen Harper made about guns and self defence.

I break down what is being said and the reality:

Statistics show that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can actually reduce crime.

PLUS: The ongoing niqab debate and more.


JOIN for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you fresh content every day!

READ Brian Lilley's book "CBC Exposed" -- It's been called "the political book of the year."

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-04-15 01:49:35 -0400
The idea for citizens being armed at its foundation (in the states anyway) is so citizens can also protect themselves from tyrannical rulers/government. Dictators all agree, take the guns. Stalin, Hitler, Mau… All disarmed the people before having their way with them.
commented 2015-03-23 15:01:20 -0400
I don’t hunt. I don’t target shoot. I don’t have a farm with livestock to protect. I live in a city with excellent policing with good response times. If however I lived in a place, like many Canadians do, that is remote, I’d likely take up hunting, target practice, and buy some livestock, so that I could protect my family in case I had to. In some areas of the country help can be a long time coming. Seems like common sense to me.
commented 2015-03-22 18:36:41 -0400
The main thing that stands out in this gun issue is the urban rural divide among Canadians. I’d bet that any MP from any political stripe that had a mainly rural voter base would have no problem with guns for self defence or whatever purpose except they are stifled by their party whips and leaders except it seems by the conservatives who do recognize the needs of the rural folks. I’ll be damned if some moron in Ottawa or Toronto thinks I’m not going to defend myself and wife and household with my shotgun or whatever is handy from intruders. The 911 call will be for somebody to pick up the trash and I’ll still have to wait a half hour.
commented 2015-03-22 14:31:15 -0400
I live an hour from any police response. And i am getting tired of being told to be a good little politically correct victim by the left. I choose not to be a victim as do many who live in cities and in rural areas and we are tired of being lectured and told how dangerous we are and how dare we even mention gun violence, let alone defend yourself or your family with one. They can go right ahead and be a victim but do not ever make the mistake and think you can force us to comply with your thinking on this. I choose self defence every time as do many canadians.
commented 2015-03-22 13:55:09 -0400
Several years ago, as a mother whose husband worked more than half the time away from home, I invited a Calgary police man to my home to share my concerns . I presented a scenario to him and asked him if he would be there in time to protect me if I called 911 to report a dangerous intruder. My son’s bedroom was on the other side of house from mine divided by a stairway and so I felt vulnerable wondering how I was going to protect him and myself as an escape was not plausible. I concluded the only way I would be able to protect myself and my son in reality was with a firearm. Prime Minister Harper is partially right but he singled out “rural communities”. The truth is even in cities and towns, police response would realistically not be timely in most cases. I think most Canadians are scared of their own shadows and ignorant of the facts when it comes to private gun ownership and the real protection they have access to in the face of danger. The statistics bare the facts that in communities where private gun ownership is accepted, crime rates are much lower. Connect the dots by thinking this through instead of accepting the leftist mainstream media Canada.
commented 2015-03-21 11:57:41 -0400
Typical of acedemics, the law school dean omitted the part where the unwashed masses get their say. Sure you may be charged, but the people who pay for everything, also known as the jury, are the ones that get to decide if you are actually guilty. Good luck finding a jury to do that……at least west of Ontario. Of course Laurention elites like said dean are not aware that there is a part of Canada west of Ontario!
commented 2015-03-20 09:09:30 -0400
William I have been a victim of home invasion. If the legal profession as exemplified by dean of law school Thomas Mulchair are going to take the attitude that I cannot defend myself I am simply not going to report the matter to the authorities at all. It will be settled on the blind side of justice and let the geniuses at CSI figure it out. In fact I won’t even use a firearm, repeated blunt force trauma is much more viscerally satisfying.

If he is close enough for a pistol or a shotgun…use a nine iron. I would love to see authorization to transport regulations imposed on golf clubs as a sort of sensitivity training for Liberals and the likes of Mulchair. How many of them would still be in possession of their golf clubs if that required their wife’s permission ? How many if it required their ex-wife’s permission.
commented 2015-03-20 04:26:46 -0400
A person’s home is where they should feel most secure. If anyone chooses to invade that space then they have forfeited their rights to their own safety in my opinion. I put the well-being of me and my family over any other concern and if someone is foolish enough to test that belief then they’ve just found a one way trip to the morgue. I live in a rural area where the nearest police station is a 45 minute drive. I’m not going to wait around for the police to show up while an intruder has his way with me and my family.
commented 2015-03-19 22:58:32 -0400
Chief Justice Mulchair of the Quebec Court of Leftist Opinion is appalled that Harper should suggest that it’s OK for Canadian citizens to take the law into their own hands….thereby depriving the graduates of his law school their little performance of Kabuki theatre at a cost so exorbitant it would make the robbery that citizen fended off cheap by comparison.

Lawyers shouldn’t even be permitted to run for public office….it is de facto conflict of interest.
commented 2015-03-18 14:53:04 -0400
Liberal and NDP gunophobes live in denial of the obvious truth: Mass civilian ownership of firearms drives crime down, not up. What gunophobes don’t understand is that violent criminals always seek the soft targets. There is nothing they love like a gun-free zone. But the truth also is that gunophobes don’t care. They just hate guns. They would rather see a gun-free country with a high violent crime rate than a country with high gun ownership and a low crime rate.
commented 2015-03-18 13:11:13 -0400
Finally, a leader who gets it! Harper is right on the money with his comments, and it flies in the face of the so called “Liberal logic” that has been trotted out by the media for decades. This country needs to get this out in the open. The only actions police take, when they eventually get to the scene of a crime in rural Canada, is to take notes, and draw nice neat chalk outlines around the bodies. That is if those poor victims followed all the stupid Liberal laws and regulations that prevent Canadians from standing up and defending themselves.
commented 2015-03-18 12:25:56 -0400
If the people of a nation has no way to defend themselves against an oppressor, it becomes that much easier to subdue the nation. Perhaps that is the long-range intent for removing guns from society.
commented 2015-03-18 08:20:17 -0400
Thank you Brian for so accurately capsulizing the official repression of lawful firearms owners. Whether it comes from leftist political lobbies or sinecured opportunists or Laurentian elitism, this effusive pogrom has been going on since our police and justice system became politicized in the 70s. Ian Thompson who defended himself against 3 thugs firebombing his home is a popular case to cite in exposing this injustice of distorting the criminal code self defense provisions to do so, but there have been literally hundreds of such clear cut cases of reasonable armed self defense where the victim was abused by the system to propagate a political viewpoint rather than uphold the spirit and letter of the law.

AS you say, this abuse was so entrenched in the political partisan law system (it no longer was a justice system) that Prime Minister had to define the force equals force provision of the criminal code for police, prosecutors and judges who have abandoned the justice system for the political anti-gun, anti- self defense pogrom. Frankly, I believe prosecution and incarceration is an appropriate response to police, crown prosecutors and Judges who twist the law to fit their political views and abuse the self defense laws to that end. They are lucky the PM simply straightened them out on the matter. Perhaps Ian Thompson et al can recover their financial losses with civil litigation against the legal system officials who abused him and the law.
commented 2015-03-17 22:51:31 -0400
Re. the niqab. Here’s my take. It is, in the west, trendy desert wear. Seriously. First designed for keeping orifices clean during sandstorms while on the move from market to market in caravans, the niqab was adopted by tribal gangs that noticed the niqab not only kept the wearer clean but also silenced them. They developed the line of fashion to use in their slave trade as the line emphasizes submissiveness. Not unlike the KKK full burka, developed exclusively in white as shockingly visible evening wear for gangsters in the American multi-racial societies inadequately ruled by law, the niqab hides identity, making the garment the perfect unisexual gangster line of fashion for today’s discernibg dissident. Cheers!
commented 2015-03-17 20:45:46 -0400
Actually guns are allowed to be kept unlocked for protection in rural areas as long as they are not loaded. I could pull out the non-restricted firearm safety training manual and tell you where it explains this but I don’t have time right now.
commented 2015-03-17 18:53:16 -0400
Niqabs have hidden men, bank robbers, jewel thieves, and murderers. They hide cut off noses and ears, acid eaten faces, and all manner of bruises and abuse. They are objects that CONFINE, like handcuffs, straight jackets, and political correctness. The sooner they are removed from this Canada the better. They smother and cause the person to re-breathe their own carbon dioxide. They represent slavery and subjection of women.

Now, again, what is it that the feminists are loving about these cages? Please refresh me on Justin’s desire to see women imprisoned by their husbands? Why does Mulcair delight in female debasement?
commented 2015-03-17 18:51:23 -0400
Don’t know about the rest of the country, but here in ON if you live on a farm your allowed to have one rifle + ammo within reach. The rest of your firearms must be locked up, but your allowed to leave one out, believe it’s called ‘’ Rural law ’’ or some such thing.
commented 2015-03-17 17:56:24 -0400
I cannot believe these progressives like Craig Oliver come to Justin Trudeau,s defence.
Even if he says stupid comments. Wearing the Nikab is not part of the Muslm religion.

Thank you
commented 2015-03-17 17:17:59 -0400
Maybe the left-wing progressive political elites could explain their thinking to the family of the unarmed Paris policeman who was murdered in cold blood by the Islamic terrorists after their attack on Charlie Hebdo. Brian, you can rant and rail, but, because of WHO they are, that is, “left-wing progressive” political elites, then NO amount of common sense, logical arguments will make them think otherwise.
Regarding the niqab issue, perhaps that Muslim woman demanding her ‘right’ to appear before a citizenship judge in a niqab could have a conversation with this Saudi woman newscaster, (Muslim Woman Tells The Truth About Islam):
Even Wikipedia, hardly a conservative source, says, “It is worn by SOME Muslim women in public areas.”
Brian, with respect your saying that you “don’t get it” on hearing these perplexing extreme views coming from the left-wing progressives (really, cultural Marxists), it should be understood that what we are experiencing is an application of the Hegelian dialectic process, that is, thesis (idea) and antithesis (opposite idea), a process that Karl Marx used in politics, economics and religion.