I can hardly await the written form of Paul Martin’s latest reelection gambit. From what his minions are already talking about on TV this morning, I can’t help but support it Huh?

Am I nuts? No. From the blurbs so far, this iteration sounds the same as usual: the “total handgun ban” is to exempt people like “legitimate target shooters”, collectors, police, etc.. In other words, the people exempt from the ban are the exact same people already permitted to possess handguns.

So the “total handgun ban” is to effect whom exactly? One can only infer, and the campaigning politicians clearly imply, just one group: the criminals. And like motherhood and apple pie, who can possibly fail to support disarming criminals? Now all we need is for all criminals to please stand at the front of the class for a quick pat-down.

UPDATE @13:30:

This being campaign season, it is hard to take literally or assume much thought behind any particular slogan. Some of the new verbiage on the liberal party website gives a nasty hint that only “participants in genuine world-class sporting events such as the olympics” may be deemed “legitemate target shooters” for purposes of ban exemption. That is, they might play games with the term “legitimate” to strangle our little minority.

This topic of course poses a challenge to the conservative party. If they can find a way to “unwedge” this issue, it would help emasculate the naive gun phobia of the common urbanite. They could go along with their own “no guns for criminals” slogan, basically daring the liberals to go into an in-depth debate on the details: about who’s a criminal, what to do with the many law-abiding gun owners, and so on. The bulk of the population would tune out of the debate, treat the pinheaded “guns are bad” idea as carving no difference between the two frontrunner parties, and move on to other well-deserved wedgies.