September 10, 2000
          
            
           A quick overview of what the semiautomatic assault rifle has in 
            common with the British North America Act: 
           While the British Empire was at war with Napoleon, the Americans 
            thought it was a good time to try a land grab up north. This didn't 
            work out so well, but did have the long term effect that, when Canada 
            formally came into existence under the BNA Act in 1867 (not 1863 as 
            Prime Minister Jean Poutine suggested a few months ago), it was a 
            bicultural nation: English and French. It was cut a very generous 
            deal with the French or, to a fair degree, risk being eaten piecemeal 
            by the Americans. 
           A curious long-term effect of this generosity is that Quebec, the 
            seat of French Canada, has produced more Prime Ministers than any 
            other province, yet still feels it has been treated so poorly that 
            it held a referendum on becoming its own nation in 1995 (and on a 
            few other earlier occasions). The 1995 vote was defeated by less than 
            1% with voter turnout exceeding 90%. 
           However, the next Canadian census, less than 150 years later, is 
            expected to show Chinese, not French, as the second commonest language 
            in Canada. When I was in grade school in British Columbia I received 
            ten minutes a day plus one seventy minute period a week of French 
            language, and like as not the ten minutes would be overriden by administrative 
            PA announcements, with the result that I'm a Canadian that can conjugate 
            two French verbs, say my name, and more or less ask where the French 
            bathrooms are. 
           Western disconcert is fed by the Quebec language police, beefed 
            up in the early 90s when the Quebec government passed a law forbidding 
            outdoor English signs (such as those on storefronts) to have the English 
            text be more than half the size of the French. That means if an English 
            word has one-inch high letters that it has to have a French equivalent 
            with two-inch high letters. And they go around with rulers measuring 
            the letters. 
           Conversely, a Canadian friend of mine, also a writer, recently lived in Wyoming. 
            While getting a haircut, his barber turned the conversation to guns. 
            My friend tensed, fearing his ears would be cut off by an irate Uzi-toting 
            hairdresser. The barber continued that he disliked guns, didn't own 
            one, and never would. My friend relaxed. BUT, the barber added, he 
            would NEVER take away my FRIEND'S right to own a gun! 
           The American right to bear arms is likewise grounded in historical 
            circumstance. It was believed that an armed populace could never be 
            subject to a corrupt government or invasion by hostile powers. Like 
            the BNA Act, it was deemed a fair safeguard to maintain coherence 
            within the nation and repel foreign incursions. 
           This only makes sense (in the original context) if the arms carried 
            by the American people roughly match the arms carried by the American 
            armed forces, and this is plainly impossible. The average American 
            can't afford a two billion dollar Stealth bomber or even a leftover 
            Russian ICBM. They're not even allowed to own nuclear weapons. What 
            they have is just enough guns to accidentally inflict a lot of heartbreak 
            on each other, and enough to allow any man with a big enough chip 
            on his shoulder to help keep alive the American tradition of gunning 
            down a President every twenty years. It's doubtful that that's what 
            the Founding Fathers intended. 
           It's equally unlikely that the authors of the British North America 
            Act intended Canadian biculturalism to be measured with a literal 
            meterstick. 
           Both circumstances smack of a fairytale king presiding over a divided 
            country being smitten with a peasant girl of the opposing faction, 
            marrying her, and swearing, "Now our country shall never be divided 
            again!" Whereupon their descendants, never having known the despair 
            and turmoil of a divided country, use this union as an excuse to make 
            outrageous demands -- as in-laws are wont to do. 
           They were conceived at a time when the security of the individual 
            was sincerely threatened. By security, I mean LIFE, that his LIFE 
            might be forfeit to invasion -- from the South in Canada's case, from 
            all directions in America's. They were not conceived, for instance, 
            for peg-legged Jacques Parizeau to dream of, as he advised a group 
            of students to likewise dream, "as long as we're in Canada, we'll get out our booty".