Column: Firearms owners applaud refunds;
Date: Aug 1, 2006 9:10 AM
PUBLICATION: Times & Transcript (Moncton)
DATE: 2006.08.01
PAGE: B5
SECTION: SPORTS
BYLINE: Everett Mosher
WORD COUNT: 828

————————————————————————
——–

Firearms owners applaud refunds;

————————————————————————
——–

Firearms owners who renewed their firearm licences were pleasantly
surprised when they recently received refund cheques in the mail. In
fact, most were downright astonished. Several have said they were
tempted to frame the cheque, and hang it on the wall. That this occurred
so soon after the election, and not a year to two later, was a source of
astonishment and wonder.

There is, however, still much controversy about Prime Minister Stephen
Harper’s plans to eliminate the long gun registry. Firearms owners are
not happy, having gone through the process of registering their
firearms, and share with non-firearm owners the concerns about the cost.
Yet the bottom line is that the long gun registry is not an effective
tool in reducing the criminal use of firearms. The money spent would
have had far more impact on crime, had it been directed to putting more
police on the streets.

One of the major concerns raised by the registry is the worry that
registration would eventually lead to confiscation.

We should be most thankful of living in Canada, and all the benefits
derived from doing so.

Without a doubt the present generation has, in the last 50 years, lived
in the best of the best of all times, far better than any time before.

Yet we are wasting our non-renewable resources at a terrific rate, and,
that, plus global warming, makes the future far less certain.

If the worst of the predictions in regards to global warming are
correct, much of the current agricultural land that is producing food
will turn into desert, with millions starving as a result. We have to
look no further than parts of Africa where drought is common, resulting
in the deaths by starvation of thousands. Is this the future of much of
the world?

A few can remember the 1930s and the dust bowl conditions common to the
mid- west. In those conditions families were forced to leave their farms
and travel to other parts of North America. If this happens on a much
larger, worldwide scale, people are going to starve.

Those that are starving and desperate are not going to abide by current
laws. Are lawlessness and the rule of the gun then going to be the order
of the day? Is this sort of thing preventable?

Perhaps. Former presidential candidate Al Gore makes a very telling
statement about the current window of opportunity to prevent this. The
reduction of greenhouse gases, using renewable resources such as solar
energy, etc. need to be top priorities, not in the future, but right
now.

Yet folks seem to be avoiding looking at the obvious. Every time a
non-profit organization asks for money to feed those that are currently
starving or destitute, I’m of the belief that the money is being
misdirected.

In a nutshell, where those people are located, the population is in
excess of the food that can be grown on the available land.

The answer is to either migrate to where the food sources are more
plentiful, or reduce the human population.

Instead of trying to feed a family of 10 kids, all of whom are starving
or close to it, would it not make more sense to only have one or two,
and thus have sufficient food for those one or two? Birth control would
indeed be the answer. Yet in those areas, often the parents will have as
many children as possible, in the hopes that at least one or two will
survive to look after the parents in their old age.

Another factor is that the average commute time in major cities such as
Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal is now an hour or more. Gas
prices will continue to rise, with the result that eventually the cost
of travelling to work via one’s own vehicle will become unaffordable.

Public transportation is part of the answer, yet the spread out suburbs
of most major cities will, at some point, become untenable. Per person,
a high- rise apartment building consumes far less energy to heat than
individual homes, plus they can be located downtown close to where a
person works.

Many scientists are predicting that the recent hot weather, drought,
heavy rains, tornados, etc. the world is experiencing is going to become
more common, and is the fore-runner of the very severe weather
conditions that will be experienced as the planet continues to warm.

Future housing must be built on land where it will not be subject to
floods, landslides, forest or grass fires, and designed and built so as
to withstand tornados, hurricanes, and temperature extremes. Houses of
wood are not the answer.

Houses of concrete and steel, with foam insulation, and built partially
underground will become more common, and have a predicted lifespan of
more than 1000 years.

At present much of our food is transported in from California, South
America or other distant places, with the price and availability very
dependant on the price of gas and oil.

As a result the future importation of this food may cost more than the
average consumer can afford. In order to survive, will much of the human
population eventually have to evacuate the cities and return to rural,
almost self- sustaining farms, complete with large gardens, such as was
common in the 1880s?

One current firearm owner made an interesting prediction concerning
Canada’s future. He said: “In 30 years, no-one will have a gun. In 60
years, everyone will have a gun.” Something to think about, especially
while watching the current news on television. He may be right, and, if
that doesn’t worry you, it should!

*Everett Mosher is a Sackville-based writer and avid outdoorsman. His
column appears on Tuesday.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !