PDA

View Full Version : WE ALL MUST JOIN THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION.



CDNGN
03-20-2014, 05:13 PM
I am presently a member of the NFA, the CSSA, and the NRA so l can keep apprised of what is happening with the Anti-gunners to the south. You just know that the ones up here that want to take away our guns, are learning from their like minded people south of the border. We as Canadians must stand united and join and support firearms organizations that have the ability and the means to fight this fight. Remember, once it is gone, we'll never get it back. So lets not loose anymore guns or rights. Let's show the politicians know how many of us there really are, and that we won't just sit back and let them take away our rights, or our lawfully owned property. The NRA has a strong membership down in the U.S.. Let's make the NFA just as strong...JOIN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Petamocto
03-20-2014, 05:26 PM
I'll pass, thanks. To each their own, but when they make comments like nobody in Canada should have to be licensed, have any safety training of any kind, or have a background check before they can buy guns, that organization does not speak for how I feel.

If they made reasonable arguments for firearm ownership that actually convinced people on the other side to see the light, then I would be all for it, but from what i have seen, they are actually having a net-loss-effect against us by solidifying the opposition.

PS - for future reference, "loose" is the opposite of tight. "Lose" is the opposite of win.

BruceW
03-20-2014, 05:57 PM
I've been a member for years. Have always sent them a donation from time to time as well. I haven't always agreed with everything they've done, or tried to do, but in general I can't imagine better representation of our interests and they are really the only independent voice we have. Like anything it won't be exactly the way each of us would like all the time.

The nfa has some incredibly knowledgable and tireless people fighting for us every single day. Much more goes on behind the scenes than we realize, and keep in mind it's been going on for a long, long time.

I also like the insurance; not to mention the spiffy magazines. That's a lot of return for 35 bucks.

Far as the mentioned statement in the article, let's be realistic. No one was licenced per se until the pal's came out, and I didn't need a bureaucrat to tell me how to teach my son to shoot, nor did my father to teach me, or his father to teach him...................

Couple that with the fact that legal firearm owners are dramatically less likely to be involved in any sort of crime than the average citizen and I can sort of see the point. Quite frankly we managed to stumble through as gun owners for generations without any bureaucrat's interference.

Worry about the people who do wrong, not the people some bureaucrat or paid activist, "thinks" might do wrong; and even worse, a politician who is willing to happily take away others freedom for a soundbite.

Stephen
03-20-2014, 09:08 PM
I'll pass, thanks. To each their own, but when they make comments like nobody in Canada should have to be licensed, have any safety training of any kind, or have a background check before they can buy guns, that organization does not speak for how I feel.

If they made reasonable arguments for firearm ownership that actually convinced people on the other side to see the light, then I would be all for it, but from what i have seen, they are actually having a net-loss-effect against us by solidifying the opposition.

PS - for future reference, "loose" is the opposite of tight. "Lose" is the opposite of win.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwg6cwaMzA1qzjix8.gif


Can you tell us about the blood running down the streets of Canada before all of this nonsense licensing existed?

FlyingHigh
03-20-2014, 09:23 PM
When the NFA and CSSA can quit bickering and learn to work together, I'll join and donate. Until then, I'll find other ways to join the fight.

Petamocto
03-20-2014, 09:45 PM
Can you tell us about the blood running down the streets of Canada before all of this nonsense licensing existed?

Not at all arguing the same point that I am. I never implied that things were dangerous before the PAL system, but the data exists in black and white that every relevant statistic exists to show that Canada is becoming more and more safe over time. I can not say for certain that is tied entirely to the addition of background checks and safety licensing, but it sure hasn't hurt.

I have said this a dozen times already on this forum, but what I want to see is a trade-off with the other side that states in order to legally own guns we must pass X level of hurdles/obstacles, but once we do, and have proven that we are responsible owners, we can own whatever we want.

That's what I do not like about what the NFA is stating, they're taking the US "From my cold dead hands" approach, where everyone has a god-given right to a gun, even if they are natural born psychos with a history of violence and intent to do harm. That's why I'll never support them.

Unless they change their tune, they will only ever cater to a small fraction of the Canadian population, which does not represent the majority of gun owners who understand that the reason we do have better stats on our side of the border is because we have things like checks and balances that do not allow an 18 year old to go buy and AR15 from Wal-Mart on a whim because he had a bad day at school.

Rory McCanuck
03-20-2014, 11:26 PM
but what I want to see is a trade-off with the other side
Oh my, but you are new, aren't you?



Unless they change their tune, they will only ever cater to a small fraction of the Canadian population, which does not represent the majority of gun owners who understand that the reason we do have better stats on our side of the border is because we have things like checks and balances that do not allow an 18 year old to go buy and AR15 from Wal-Mart on a whim because he had a bad day at school.
That's a direct quote from pg. 189 of Liberal Talking Points For Browbeating Knuckle Draggers Handbook©, isn't it?

CDNGN
03-21-2014, 02:48 AM
...

CDNGN
03-21-2014, 02:49 AM
I'll pass, thanks. To each their own, but when they make comments like nobody in Canada should have to be licensed, have any safety training of any kind, or have a background check before they can buy guns, that organization does not speak for how I feel.

If they made reasonable arguments for firearm ownership that actually convinced people on the other side to see the light, then I would be all for it, but from what i have seen, they are actually having a net-loss-effect against us by solidifying the opposition.

PS - for future reference, "loose" is the opposite of tight. "Lose" is the opposite of win.

Okay English major.........

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 04:47 AM
Not at all arguing the same point that I am. I never implied that things were dangerous before the PAL system, but the data exists in black and white that every relevant statistic exists to show that Canada is becoming more and more safe over time. I can not say for certain that is tied entirely to the addition of background checks and safety licensing, but it sure hasn't hurt.

I have said this a dozen times already on this forum, but what I want to see is a trade-off with the other side that states in order to legally own guns we must pass X level of hurdles/obstacles, but once we do, and have proven that we are responsible owners, we can own whatever we want.

That's what I do not like about what the NFA is stating, they're taking the US "From my cold dead hands" approach, where everyone has a god-given right to a gun, even if they are natural born psychos with a history of violence and intent to do harm. That's why I'll never support them.

Unless they change their tune, they will only ever cater to a small fraction of the Canadian population, which does not represent the majority of gun owners who understand that the reason we do have better stats on our side of the border is because we have things like checks and balances that do not allow an 18 year old to go buy and AR15 from Wal-Mart on a whim because he had a bad day at school.

First, there is peer reviewed work by Mauser and Langman that show there is NO EVIDENCE the reduction in crime is due to licensing. The most likely biggest reason (as there would be a multitude of reasons) is an aging population.

Second, while you caught the NFA part about not needing licensing, you MISSED the part where they said they would be ok with a FAC system as a compromise even though again there is no evidence to suggest even that had an impact. This is just like people misunderstanding those of us who are saying repeal C-68. Most of us are not really saying repeal C-68 and leave nothing in its place. We are saying (NFA included here) repeal C-68 and put in legislation that does not criminalize and target law abiding gun owners.

Seriously Petamocto, ya gotta dig deeper than one sound-bite! Oh, and as far as catering to "a small fraction", I'm pretty sure the NFA have a larger membership than the CSSA and are growing at a much faster rate.

awndray
03-21-2014, 04:55 AM
Why is this in the Swiss Arms section? Why the OP yelling? There's an NFA section. I would really like for my thread in the members section be moved to the public section so that people can see what some of us have a problem with with regards to these types of conversations.

walperstyle
03-21-2014, 05:23 AM
For what its worth, I think the Licence is a good idea because it requires safety courses. I operate a car, perform CPR, do a little search and rescue, work around poisons gas, transport dangerous chemicals ...I have to be qualified in those. So firearm safety qualification makes sense to me. It also should be a simple Prohibited, and non-Prohibited, with no registration.

I will join both orgs shortly, just because I like the idea of the insurance packages with them and the lawyers and lobby groups.

Petamocto
03-21-2014, 05:39 AM
First, there is peer reviewed work by Mauser and Langman that show there is NO EVIDENCE the reduction in crime is due to licensing.

It's not just the licensing, it's the combination of all of the factors that are likely resulting in the numbers we have now. It has to be looked at as a complete system of our culture + the obstacles / hurdles we put in place to ensure responsible ownership.

Everyone knows about the bad guys, and that they'll get their guns no matter what. We can't focus on them, they are the minority by a huge margin compared to legal owners.

What we can do is take an average adult who wants to buy a gun (for whatever intent), and ask ourselves how easy that should be. Should they be able to go to the corner store and get one? Should they be able to get one on Kijiji?

I like the start-up system we have now. Passing a safety course, mandatory waiting period, background check, references, safe storage rules, etc. All of those things are good, not just for reducing the bad gun stats, but for showing the other side that we care about responsible ownership.

It's not just about the numbers; we're talking about passionate and educated people on the other side, and when someone suggests something like no licenses or background checks should be required, it mobilizes them just like the recent SA/CZ858 issue has mobilized us. The best strategy is to keep showing them that we are happy to police ourselves, and we don't want just anyone to be able to have easy access.

3MTA3
03-21-2014, 06:08 AM
It's the demographics man
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/na0530-census-over-80.jpg
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-551/figures/chart3.jpg
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882/c-g/c-g01-eng.gif
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738/c-g/E-11738-c-g-03.gif
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692/c-g/11692-chart13-eng.jpg
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692/c-g/11692-chart15-eng.jpg
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692/c-g/11692-chart14-eng.jpg

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 06:17 AM
It's not just the licensing, it's the combination of all of the factors that are likely resulting in the numbers we have now. It has to be looked at as a complete system of our culture + the obstacles / hurdles we put in place to ensure responsible ownership.

Everyone knows about the bad guys, and that they'll get their guns no matter what. We can't focus on them, they are the minority by a huge margin compared to legal owners.

What we can do is take an average adult who wants to buy a gun (for whatever intent), and ask ourselves how easy that should be. Should they be able to go to the corner store and get one? Should they be able to get one on Kijiji?

I like the start-up system we have now. Passing a safety course, mandatory waiting period, background check, references, safe storage rules, etc. All of those things are good, not just for reducing the bad gun stats, but for showing the other side that we care about responsible ownership.

It's not just about the numbers; we're talking about passionate and educated people on the other side, and when someone suggests something like no licenses or background checks should be required, it mobilizes them just like the recent SA/CZ858 issue has mobilized us. The best strategy is to keep showing them that we are happy to police ourselves, and we don't want just anyone to be able to have easy access.

Um...Mauser and Langman's peer reviewed studies have scientifically shown you to be wrong. The "combination of all of the factors" in regards to ANY gun control measures since 1968 have NOT contributed to the reduction in crime, homicide or suicide. Your arguments are the exact same as those of the antis who refuse to listen to facts.

Now, as walperstyle has said above, safety courses are probably a good thing and most people are not opposed to them. There is no reason why a FAC system can't incorporate a safety course. And it DID include a background check.

However, anyone with a FAC should absolutely be able to buy a rifle at a corner store or on kijiji. We did before and it was not a contributor to crime. Perhaps you are not old enough (not slagging you) to remember those times but I and a great many other are. We are hear to tell you it is OK to treat firearms possession as a non-criminal activity. It is OK to sell them at Sears, Canadian Tire and the local hardware store. It is OK for private citizens to sell them to each other without the government's involvement.

The criminalization of firearms ownership is very recent in Canadian history beginning in '98. The current licensing system is part and parcel of that criminalization. It has NOT prevented crime. Yes safety is important, yes background checks are important. No the NFA is not saying get rid of those. They are only saying there is no evidence that they are effective. But yes we are willing to compromise and have a FAC system that incorporates safety courses and background checks. But guess what? That is ALL that is necessary in this country to ensure public safety.

Petamocto
03-21-2014, 06:22 AM
What stats are you looking at? Check out the thread I started on firearms statistics in Canada, using numbers from StatsCan and the RCMP.

Firearm homicide rates are less than half of what they used to be in the 1970s.

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 06:30 AM
What stats are you looking at? Check out the thread I started on firearms statistics in Canada, using numbers from StatsCan and the RCMP.

Firearm homicide rates are less than half of what they used to be in the 1970s.

I don't need to look at stats and try to interpret them as a layman. A PEER REVIEWED STUDY BY DOCTORS WAS DONE! (sorry for the shouting)


Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008

#Authors

Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD11McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaCaillin Langmann, McMaster University, Division of Emergency Medicine, HHSC, Hamilton General Hospital Site, McMaster Clinic 2nd Floor, Hamilton, Ontario L8L 2X2, Canada Email:langmann@alumni.sfu.ca

Abstract

Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament—Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)—nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.

community violence#criminology#domestic violence#homicide#legal intervention

Article Notes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests#The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding#The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

© The Author(s) 2012

walperstyle
03-21-2014, 07:43 AM
It has been a deterrent. How measureable is questionable.

also, avoid grabbing random graphs on the internet, generally they leave out other factors. Its like a math equation, that leaves out some variables.

Petamocto
03-21-2014, 07:46 AM
I am somewhat confused by that. If there's one thing I've learned through cycling through university-land, it is that it is possible to do a study on practically anything and come up with the results you want. I understand that their work is different than an undergrad writing a paper, but I do not really understand what they are claiming.

It may be a case where someone is looking so directly at one specific point through a microscope that they are failing to take a step back and see the big picture. All the data exists to show that gun crime has been going down since the 1970s, and they are saying things like licensing and background checks have nothing to do with that?

In the full version of the study, do they actually take their work to the next level and try to suggest what is responsible for the drop in firearm crime during that time?

I am an open minded person, and people have convinced me to change my mind in the past, but I refuse to believe that making guns easy to get for anyone who wants them is a good thing. Every ounce of common sense and experience would suggest that guns can only be safe when responsible people who don't want to harm others have them.

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 07:47 AM
It has been a deterrent. How measureable is questionable.

What has been a deterrent to whom?

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 07:59 AM
I am somewhat confused by that. If there's one thing I've learned through cycling through university-land, it is that it is possible to do a study on practically anything and come up with the results you want. I understand that their work is different than an undergrad writing a paper, but I do not really understand what they are claiming.

It may be a case where someone is looking so directly at one specific point through a microscope that they are failing to take a step back and see the big picture. All the data exists to show that gun crime has been going down since the 1970s, and they are saying things like licensing and background checks have nothing to do with that?

In the full version of the study, do they actually take their work to the next level and try to suggest what is responsible for the drop in firearm crime during that time?

I am an open minded person, and people have convinced me to change my mind in the past, but I refuse to believe that making guns easy to get for anyone who wants them is a good thing. Every ounce of common sense and experience would suggest that guns can only be safe when responsible people who don't want to harm others have them.

If you are trying to refute Langman/Mauser then you are an anti. I am not trying to offend you, but your arguments above suggest that

a) you are not familiar with them, their work or the non-partisan position they came from (Mauser is an economist, Langman an ER doctor)
b) you think you know better than a scientific peer-reviewed study (not talking about a study commissioned by a partisan group with a desired outcome set before the study began)
c) you have not read any of these researcher's work nor seen their testimony (there is an excellent CPAN video of Langman testifying to a senate committee before LGR was repealed for example)
d) you are new to the pro-gun fight as Mauser and Langman are heroes in the community, revered for being a voice of non-partisan sanity coming from academia

Quite frankly, I have never seen someone on GOC, CGN or any other pro-firearms forum argue against Mauser or Langman. And this:


I am an open minded person, and people have convinced me to change my mind in the past, but I refuse to believe that making guns easy to get for anyone who wants them is a good thing.

is a contradiction you realize? That is how antis think. "I think X no matter what the facts are". Now I'm not trying to put you down, just change your opinion. If you are a gun owner then you are one of "us".

Petamocto
03-21-2014, 08:08 AM
I'm not arguing against anyone, you nor the study. I am stating I want to learn more about it, because I am not sure how one can be dismissive of the hard data.

You're the one using ALL CAPS, calling me an "anti", with NO COMPROMISE as your signature block.

We're trying to have a discussion here, buds, no need to get all huffy puffy.

All I am saying is that even if that study is true, all it claims is that there is no proof that regulation reduces crime. It does not state that not having regulation would reduce crime. There is a big difference between not having a correlation, and stating the opposite to be true.

If you can cite a study that proves safety will increase if we give guns to more people who can't pass a background check, I will change my mind.

Two For Sure
03-21-2014, 08:18 AM
I'll pass, thanks. To each their own, but when they make comments like nobody in Canada should have to be licensed, have any safety training of any kind, or have a background check before they can buy guns, that organization does not speak for how I feel.

If they made reasonable arguments for firearm ownership that actually convinced people on the other side to see the light, then I would be all for it, but from what i have seen, they are actually having a net-loss-effect against us by solidifying the opposition.
That sums up my view of them perfectly. The NFA is not an organization I will support.

3MTA3
03-21-2014, 08:21 AM
It has been a deterrent. How measureable is questionable.

also, avoid grabbing random graphs on the internet, generally they leave out other factors. Its like a math equation, that leaves out some variables.
Ok how about 2(5+3x)=15+6x I think you will find the solution for this equation relevant to the discussion at hand.
Demographics

3MTA3
03-21-2014, 08:23 AM
I'm not arguing against anyone, you nor the study. I am stating I want to learn more about it, because I am not sure how one can be dismissive of the hard data.

You're the one using ALL CAPS, calling me an "anti", with NO COMPROMISE as your signature block.

We're trying to have a discussion here, buds, no need to get all huffy puffy.

All I am saying is that even if that study is true, all it claims is that there is no proof that regulation reduces crime. It does not state that not having regulation would reduce crime. There is a big difference between not having a correlation, and stating the opposite to be true.

If you can cite a study that proves safety will increase if we give guns to more people who can't pass a background check, I will change my mind.


http://www.amazon.ca/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636 except the background part:red:

awndray
03-21-2014, 08:30 AM
also, avoid grabbing random graphs on the internet, generally they leave out other factors. Its like a math equation, that leaves out some variables.
Considering this is an online forums - read, on the Internet - I think posting graphs from the Internet falls within the acceptable and reasonable use of information. In my opinion, it's better than making wild claims of self-professed greatness or using invalidated third-party experience.

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 08:33 AM
I'm not arguing against anyone, you nor the study. I am stating I want to learn more about it, because I am not sure how one can be dismissive of the hard data.

Mauser/Langman is the hard data.


You're the one using ALL CAPS, calling me an "anti", with NO COMPROMISE as your signature block.

We're trying to have a discussion here, buds, no need to get all huffy puffy.

Tone is hard to convey in a forum. I am not huffy, if I came across as such I didn't mean to. Just stressing some points. "NO COMPROMISE" means amnesty and Cheryl Gallant's M-452 motion are not enough of a change. Sections 91 and 92 (criminalizing simple possession of a firearm) must be removed, CFOs arbitrary powers must be removed etc etc.


All I am saying is that even if that study is true, all it claims is that there is no proof that regulation reduces crime. It does not state that not having regulation would reduce crime. There is a big difference between not having a correlation, and stating the opposite to be true.

The study is peer reviewed scientific fact. If you believe that it proves regulation does not reduce crime then why are you of the opinion we need said regulation? To be "on the safe side"? Further, there are no Canadian scientific peer-reviewed studies that show any of our gun laws reduce crime. You or I looking at a statscan or RCMP web page and seeing that homicide is lower now than the 70's doesn't mean anything.


If you can cite a study that proves safety will increase if we give guns to more people who can't pass a background check, I will change my mind.

As I have stated before in this thread, no one is saying to give guns to more people who can't pass a background check. Did you not read my statement a few posts up that said we should have a FAC system with safety courses and that the FAC does indeed include a background check?

Petamocto
03-21-2014, 02:02 PM
I understand that in some cases more guns = less crime. However, they still need to be guns in the right hands.

I think it would actually be interesting to pick a town in Canada and do a trial with some sort of mid-level citizens between civilians and police officer. Say if a normal town has 5,000, and that own has 10 Police officers. I wonder what would happen if you gave the most responsible 200 people in that town a permit to carry (if they wanted it), with some sort of direct communication to the Police. Don't actually make them Police "light", but just armed responsible citizens that have to attend a mandatory weekend of training every year.

Not everyone would have guns, but it would be enough that your average bad guy would think twice before doing anything bad.

See what happens in that Canadian town for 10 years, and I think you'd end up with a much better apples-to-apples comparison based on Canadian customs.

Doug_M
03-21-2014, 02:17 PM
A FAC system does ensure guns are in the right hands. The difference between FAC and PAL primarily is the latter makes possession criminal otherwise. For example, my father-in-law who has owned firearms practically all his life (in his late 70s now) thought that the ending of the Long Gun Registry meant he could also let his POL lapse. And that is precisely what he intended to do until I caught wind of it and informed him licenses are still required. That kind of scenario is far more common than one might think. And frankly why should he need a license to continue to own his firearms that he has already owned for decades?

As for CCW the case for it is pretty clear in the US. Since the 80s states have been going back to allowing CCW. Most of them (all but 2 now I believe) do so under "shall issue" rather than "may issue". When you look at the numbers of people who are lawfully carrying and compare that with the number of legal CCW holders that abuse that the ration (in favour of CCW) is staggering.

There is a thread on "that other forum" where someone will be debating this on a radio station (search that forum for AM 980). Anyway from that thread someone posted this:


Wisconsin passed shall-issue CCW in 2012. More than 200,000 permits have been issued. Is Wisconsin now a war zone? You would think if there were any problems, the media would be all over it. Instead there is not even a peep that I can find.

And I think the above is the norm. But, that being said I am not one pushing for CCW in Canada at this time. Too much for the general public to absorb at this point.

Rory McCanuck
03-21-2014, 04:19 PM
I understand that in some cases more guns = less crime. However, they still need to be guns in the right hands.

I think it would actually be interesting to pick a town in Canada and do a trial with some sort of mid-level citizens between civilians and police officer. Say if a normal town has 5,000, and that own has 10 Police officers. I wonder what would happen if you gave the most responsible 200 people in that town a permit to carry (if they wanted it), with some sort of direct communication to the Police. Don't actually make them Police "light", but just armed responsible citizens that have to attend a mandatory weekend of training every year.

Not everyone would have guns, but it would be enough that your average bad guy would think twice before doing anything bad.

See what happens in that Canadian town for 10 years, and I think you'd end up with a much better apples-to-apples comparison based on Canadian customs.

Pretty easy test, actually. Go to a local paper outside of any of the major sh**-holes...err I mean cities, and look through the archives for gun crimes in the 60s and 70s. Other than a few biker disagreements and mob family picnics out in the countryside, there wasn't much blood flowing in the streets.

BrotherRockeye
03-21-2014, 04:27 PM
Consider the sources of information you folks are citing in your arguments...and who stands to gain from their version of the facts...an impartial review committee or the RCMP...

Doug is right btw and its obvious if folks would stop and consider what the license means...

FAC= firearms acquisition certificate : you needed one to acquire a gun(buy or borrow) not required if you already owned one. No license=can't buy or borrow a firearm.

POL= possession only license :you need one of these to have a gun. No license=subject to criminal prosecution

PAL= possession acquisition license : you need one of these to have or get a gun. No license=subject to criminal prosecution

the biggest difference is that NOW if you don't have a license you are subject to criminal prosecution.

My old man had a 303, a 12ga that my Mom bought him as a wedding gift and an old .22. The only license he ever had was for duck hunting.
I firmly believe that if the majority of the population went heeled that crime would go out of style pretty fast. If there is a chance takin Grannies purse is gonna get you ventilated you'd think twice about it.
Now that's just me dreamin of a utopian society where the bad guys are scared to be bad and the good guys are empowered to be good...

Rory McCanuck
03-21-2014, 05:34 PM
Careful BR, you'll have some statist calling you a freetard soon. ;D
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) what works fine in Vulcan Sk doesn't fly in deepest darkest Jane and Finch. Although, on reflection, there's maybe more people packing per firearm incident in Churronna than in Vulcan?
Who knows?

BrotherRockeye
03-21-2014, 06:42 PM
as I said, that just my idea of utopia. There are no human ant hills there either...and the Leafs won the cup in the last 20 years ;D

lone-wolf
03-21-2014, 07:38 PM
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11854/c-g/c-g01-eng.gif

Jesus, what laws were around in 1962 that made us so safe?
I wonder what the pei crime rate was in 1962.


Obama(for obamacare) should of hired whoever runs the RCMP website, cause it really is a wealth of information.

History of Firearms Control in Canada: Up to and Including the Firearms Act
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hist/con-eng.htm

FlyingHigh
03-21-2014, 08:33 PM
This thread is a prime example of why gun owners in Canada never get anything done. All they do is argue and debate with each other rather than finding common ground, compromising with each other and then uniting and fighting the antis.

Mad Hatter
03-21-2014, 11:38 PM
We could argue the point and debate forever. Regardless of what stats prove, they want us disarmed. Canada, the RCMP and the UN. Period. And they will stop at nothing until we are. So quoting stats and talking reason is quite simply :smash: I think in the end it may just come down to anarchy. What else can you fight tyranny with?

cathaldj
03-22-2014, 12:15 AM
I always show up to these "discussions" a little late. By going after the final prizes we are fools by setting up the anti's to have a case. And regardless of what you think, we will be judged in the court of public opinion.

There are a lot of guys on here who think that the public doesn't matter. You are wrong! The public will determine whether you have guns or not. If you think that we should get our AR's now! and our CCW's! and our right to bear arms! and scrap the FA!! you are setting yourselves and the rest of us to burn with you when the Liberals get in power. The AR is the posterchild of baby killing, if we ask for the declassification without providing a solid foundation we will be vilified as monsters and they will again be taken away. We have NO RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP in this country! Without public support we never will.

We do not have the political power to create some firearm utopia like the US! We should look at uniting both Orgs and keep after more attainable goals.

1. Re-interpret the FA. The minister could do this tomorrow, and we could have ATC's by the end of the week. Nothing would have changed in the FA. Think about that for a second: ATC's, PAL for life, issued 12.x's...

2. Then go after loosening the restricted class. eg: combine the Non's and Rest class but leave the registrations of handguns in place.

3. I think you get the point by now.

Yes, I support the NFA but they are not helping the situation by being shortsighted and losing the bigger picture.

MKivSupra
03-22-2014, 01:25 AM
I'll pass, thanks. To each their own, but when they make comments like nobody in Canada should have to be licensed, have any safety training of any kind, or have a background check before they can buy guns, that organization does not speak for how I feel.

If they made reasonable arguments for firearm ownership that actually convinced people on the other side to see the light, then I would be all for it, but from what i have seen, they are actually having a net-loss-effect against us by solidifying the opposition.

PS - for future reference, "loose" is the opposite of tight. "Lose" is the opposite of win.

agreed fully. i actually thought that no license thing was a joke. I'm all for concealed carry, not making guns restricted based on name, etc. But for those who are responsible only. You need rules and standards, just not ridiculous illogical ones like we have now.

Doug_M
03-22-2014, 05:05 AM
The successful social re-engineering by the Liberals is strong in this thread. The FA does not weed out the irresponsible. The responsible were there in droves long before C-68. The FAC is good enough and we can get public support for that. Repealing sections 91 and 92 to make us non-criminals again while still being able to charge actual criminals with possession of a firearm is possible (that's how it use to be). The FA is a failure and we can sell it to the public quite easily. Anti's gonna anti as they say, but the masses are actually quite reasonable.

You don't have to belong to both orgs (I do) and which one you choose is of course your choice.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

3MTA3
03-22-2014, 06:11 AM
Join the orgs, express your opinion, influence the policy -they really are the only option to pursue positive change -don't believe for a second that CFGC or IANSA (maybe RCMP too) can be swayed from their ultimate goal.




It may be a case where someone is looking so directly at one specific point through a microscope that they are failing to take a step back and see the big picture. All the data exists to show that gun crime has been going down since the 1970s, and they are saying things like licensing and background checks have nothing to do with that?
.

The only real form of licensing for NR firearms owners until the late 90's was hunting licenses ( handguns different story). I really don't think the current licensing regime has changed the makeup of crime or firearms deaths in any manner. The largest number of deaths related to firearms are still suicides. I can't believe licensing can prevent suicides in any way. Preventing access to firearms by those considering suicide may only cause a substitution of methods. Diploma disease and credential-ism are the bane of modern times, this mindset even invades firearm ownership! Yes social engineering has bore its' fruit!


BTW AR's were once legal to hunt with here- with no real adverse effects associated, other than some soiled silk shorts.

alaus24
04-15-2014, 01:50 PM
For what its worth, I think the Licence is a good idea because it requires safety courses. I operate a car, perform CPR, do a little search and rescue, work around poisons gas, transport dangerous chemicals ...I have to be qualified in those. So firearm safety qualification makes sense to me. It also should be a simple Prohibited, and non-Prohibited, with no registration.

I will join both orgs shortly, just because I like the idea of the insurance packages with them and the lawyers and lobby groups.

Sorry to rain on your parade but you don't need to take a course, just challenge the test. Non restricted and restricted...

Foxer
04-15-2014, 01:59 PM
First, there is peer reviewed work by Mauser and Langman that show there is NO EVIDENCE the reduction in crime is due to licensing. The most likely biggest reason (as there would be a multitude of reasons) is an aging population.

Well.. not QUITE accurate. First off - he did a paper demonstrating that there's no correlation between the availability of guns and criminal homocides, but that's different. He has also said that the evidence currently available suggests that safety training and safe storage has likely resulted in fewer accidents - but that's also different than gun crime. I don't think he's done any work on 'aging populations' having anything to do with gun crime's specifically, and in fact much research shows that in both canada and other countries there are a number of socio-economic factors at play.

however - even based on the research he has done if 'licensing' has any effect at all, it's not really the 'licensing' so much as the safety training and criminal background check - licensing is just proof of that. Certification would be as well and would be a much much better model.

However - in fairness I think when people say 'licensing' they mostly mean proof of background check and safety training. Not really a huge crime fighting tool, but it does reduce accidents.

Foxer
04-15-2014, 02:00 PM
Sorry to rain on your parade but you don't need to take a course, just challenge the test. Non restricted and restricted...
Quite true, but obviously if you pass the tests you had the equivalent of the training somewhere along the line. It still forces you to learn about safety before you start using a firearm. Frankly - i think we should have more people mentoring and less people 'taking the course' anyway.

Carguy2550
04-15-2014, 02:58 PM
Great. Let's offer the safety course in high school as an extra curricular after school hours. We would get more young people interested in shooting. While we are here everyone needs to go and google "Overton window". As a group we need to stand united and demand the moon, stars, and everything. The antis have been doing this for years and its time we started using their play look on them. Hopefully when the dust settles the antis will be saying "...we'll at least we didn't get hammered that bad..." Instead of us giving up our rights a little at a time and thinking we've won.

Foxer
04-15-2014, 05:06 PM
Great. Let's offer the safety course in high school as an extra curricular after school hours. We would get more young people interested in shooting. I'm all over that, but good luck talking the teachers unions into it :)

Carguy2550
04-15-2014, 07:20 PM
What do the teachers unions have to do with it. They aren't qualified to teach the CFSC. Much in the same way they use a driving school to offer drivers ed. My cousin got her hunter ed course through high school

Foxer
04-15-2014, 07:25 PM
What do the teachers unions have to do with it.
They won't let others do school based extra curricular activites at the schools without their ok (could lead to their jobs being done by others), and they sure as hell will raise a fuss about having firearms training on the school. You can bet in most provinces it would be a massive issue.

Some schools may allow it, but consider that when Stormbringer's range raised money for the school the school refused it, demanding they didn't have to accept anything associated with guns. And that's trying to give them free money fer heaven's sake!

Carguy2550
04-15-2014, 08:23 PM
I get that teachers may not want outsiders running extra curriculars. The unions would likely put up less of a fuss than the educrats that run schools. I too am a union member. Do I agree with everything they do, or their politics - no. But what organization is perfect. Putting safety training in schools or at least making it available would go a long way to establishing a new norm. It's the first steps to begin winning over hearts and minds. As the title of the thread said - everyone should be an NFA member. There are approximately 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada. If 200,000 joined our voice in Ottawa would be huge. If 4 or 5 hundred thousand joined we could literally decide the outcome of an election.

Foxer
04-15-2014, 10:05 PM
Putting safety training in schools or at least making it available would go a long way to establishing a new norm. Or re-establishing the old norm some might say :) But that is exactly why the teachers unions of most provinces would violently oppose it. It would be a massive battle here in bc, and in other provinces. The teachers unions here already spend a lot of money on anti-gun causes and lobbied hard when the registry was on the block.


There are approximately 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada. If 200,000 joined our voice in Ottawa would be huge. If 4 or 5 hundred thousand joined we could literally decide the outcome of an election.

You are absolutely correct - never mind leadership conventions (only 250k members on average - we`d OWN who was the next leader of the CPC for example). But - there is a little more to it than that.

Carguy2550
04-15-2014, 10:53 PM
I can honestly say that I've never looked into the role that unions have played in gun control. What I have noticed is that unions have strayed from their original mandate of labor issues and are now becoming politically active on a variety of topics. I cannot say I'm surprised that unions would support gun control.

What we can all agree on (I hope) is that joining the NFA, or CSSA is not really optional anymore. If you are a firearms owner you should at least be an NFA member. This way we are all in the same boat rowing in the same direction. Unity is the key.

Mr. Lahey
05-18-2014, 06:56 PM
I'm a member of neither right now, but I'd lean much more towards the CSSA than the NFA. An organization that actively promotes a safe and responsible use of firearms to the general public holds a lot more appeal to me than a lobby group that doesn't really represent my wishes.

x0ra
05-18-2014, 07:11 PM
I've been unimpressed by NFA communication skills, especially the its french section [which is, I'm not afraid to say, illiterate].

lone-wolf
05-18-2014, 07:15 PM
hopefully they spend less time talking to politicians and more time talking to people on computers in the future.

Mr. Lahey
05-19-2014, 12:15 PM
I'd rather they spoke with more people in the community.

jwirecom109
05-19-2014, 03:39 PM
I'd rather they spoke with more people in the community.

The NFA is increasing its Field Officer program just for this reason.

Jarlath
05-20-2014, 07:01 AM
I'm a member of neither right now, but I'd lean much more towards the CSSA than the NFA. An organization that actively promotes a safe and responsible use of firearms to the general public holds a lot more appeal to me than a lobby group that doesn't really represent my wishes.

While I thank you for your preference in organizations, I would still recommend that you join one or both organizations in order to help do two things.
1. Bolster our membership numbers so that the respective orgs can have more clout at any meetings/discussions with political figures.
2. Increase our war chests to continue the fight on behalf of our membership and the firearms community at large.

Steve
05-20-2014, 01:25 PM
I'll pass, thanks. To each their own, but when they make comments like nobody in Canada should have to be licensed, have any safety training of any kind, or have a background check before they can buy guns, that organization does not speak for how I feel.

If they made reasonable arguments for firearm ownership that actually convinced people on the other side to see the light, then I would be all for it, but from what i have seen, they are actually having a net-loss-effect against us by solidifying the opposition...

I support safety training as well. One thing that has been overlooked is that in the past fifty years, Canada has become more urban. Fewer young men are exposed to firearms now. Not having a father or an uncle that can show them the ropes has left a void. The NFA is way behind the curve on this. I thought that this sort of thinking would have changed after Dave Tomlinson died, but it hasn't. He and I had some colourful chats. A very astute man when it came to firearms law, but a horrible marketing manager.

The present NFA executive could use some help with their PR. The general public won't take to anyone that comes across as a redneck or inflexible. Politicians listen to the public and gauge their mood. Like it or not, that's the way it is. The two organizations are far apart on their approach to changing the government's way of thinking. From where I sit, that won't change until there is a radical change in the executives of both the NFA and the CSSA. Given the history of both groups, that's unlikely to happen soon enough to help anyone.


I'm a member of neither right now, but I'd lean much more towards the CSSA than the NFA. An organization that actively promotes a safe and responsible use of firearms to the general public holds a lot more appeal to me than a lobby group that doesn't really represent my wishes.

Despite what has been said, I suggest that you not join any organization unless you feel comfortable with the decision.


I've been unimpressed by NFA communication skills, especially the its french section [which is, I'm not afraid to say, illiterate].

I think they tried to recruit French speakers, but it's obvious that they cannot drum up much support in Quebec. Friends that live in the Saguenay (central Quebec) tell me that they come across as a western fringe group. (Don't shoot the messenger.)

connexion123
05-21-2014, 05:38 AM
I am a member of both.

We should not have to have a licence to own property by the way petamocto

awndray
05-21-2014, 06:10 AM
My views regarding the NFA have been shared around here a number of times [*ahem*] (http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?11607-Communicating-With-Your-Members-and-the-Public). Here's yet another example of the type of thing that bothers me about them.


The word is that there are changes coming soon from the CPC on firearms issues. They aren't saying much, but indication from earlier this year included making the AR-15 non-restricted, creating a classification committee, removing the ability to challenge to obtain a PAL, and making the PAL good for life. There may even be some changes on magazine capacity. That really isn't much of what needs to be done. there likely wouldn't be anything on CCW, or removing the criminalization of simple possession of firearms from the Criminal Code. What do you expect them to be changing?

As to the CSSA, I'm only a member as a condition of my shooting club's requirements for insurance.

Steve
05-21-2014, 06:22 AM
Double post.

Steve
05-21-2014, 06:24 AM
Ownership and operation (usage) are two separate arguments. We must be careful to separate the two. I have no problem with people owning firearms, but if they intend on using them, the game changes. Having a PAL shows others that the holder has demonstrated a competency to safely handle and use them. Whether it's on a range or in the field, if I'm with that person, I expect them to know what to do.

We licence motor vehicle operators for different competencies - motorcycles, big trucks, air brakes. Please note that I'm not referring to who can own motorcycles, big trucks or a vehicle with air brakes; I'm talking about their operation. We no longer require "firearms ownerships", but I expect that people show that they are safe to handle and operate them. It's the same as driving a big truck - I would not want just anyone to get behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler and head out on the highway without training.

If you check some of the other threads on this board - specifically, the discussion about whether or not the police require a PAL - some posters have suggested there are LEOs who are unsafe. If this is true, then they do not possess the minimum skills to carry and use a firearm. Get the qualification and be done with it. Additionally, they will have a better understanding of firearms law, transport and handling. I'd like that should I ever get pulled over.


...As to the CSSA, I'm only a member as a condition of my shooting club's requirements for insurance.

That's funny. I say the same thing about the OFAH.

awndray
05-21-2014, 07:20 AM
Ownership and operation (usage) are two separate arguments. We must be careful to separate the two. I have no problem with people owning firearms, but if they intend on using them, the game changes. Having a PAL shows others that the holder has demonstrated a competency to safely handle and use them. Whether it's on a range or in the field, if I'm with that person, I expect them to know what to do.

We licence motor vehicle operators for different competencies - motorcycles, big trucks, air brakes. Please note that I'm not referring to who can own motorcycles, big trucks or a vehicle with air brakes; I'm talking about their operation. We no longer require "firearms ownerships", but I expect that people show that they are safe to handle and operate them. It's the same as driving a big truck - I would not want just anyone to get behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler and head out on the highway without training.
I agree with this. Anyone can go out and buy a vehicle without a license, but you need to be licensed to drive it on public roads. (Let's not get into the Freeman movement's belief that you can commute without a license). The same should apply to firearms.

Foxer
05-21-2014, 07:56 AM
I agree with this. Anyone can go out and buy a vehicle without a license, but you need to be licensed to drive it on public roads. (Let's not get into the Freeman movement's belief that you can commute without a license). The same should apply to firearms.

I'm largely on the same page. People should still be required to store their firearms safely if they have no 'usage' license, but really it's usage that represents a risk to the uneducated. We should have a "FUL" (firearms user license) instead of a "POL". :)

lone-wolf
05-21-2014, 02:42 PM
Ownership and operation (usage) are two separate arguments. We must be careful to separate the two. I have no problem with people owning firearms, but if they intend on using them, the game changes. Having a PAL shows others that the holder has demonstrated a competency to safely handle and use them. Whether it's on a range or in the field, if I'm with that person, I expect them to know what to do.

We licence motor vehicle operators for different competencies - motorcycles, big trucks, air brakes. Please note that I'm not referring to who can own motorcycles, big trucks or a vehicle with air brakes; I'm talking about their operation. We no longer require "firearms ownerships", but I expect that people show that they are safe to handle and operate them. It's the same as driving a big truck - I would not want just anyone to get behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler and head out on the highway without training.

So, ranges can institute a safety course/test before becoming a member if they wish, private sector solution, no government needed.
From what I hear, it wouldn't hurt them to do that right now(voluntarily), if I owned a range I would.
Hunting license/course would cover the hunting and public use for the most part.

Steve
05-22-2014, 06:48 AM
Many ranges have probationary shoots before new members can be signed off. They are designed to inform new members of the range rules and ensure that they are safe. This has been done for years by many clubs. The private sector solution does not work in this case because only accredited instructors are allowed to officially train and test. An instructor has to be certified through the CFO's office.

Training of instructors, shooters and hunters has become a profitable business. For example, in Ontario, they have a three day course ($350) to get your instructor certification.

There is no legal requirement for a club level range safety course, but as I said, many clubs started this to impress the CFO's office. It's nothing new. Unfortunately, because clubs make up their own safety courses, there is no standardization. And, of course, you cannot join another club and say that you were checked out at your last one. As a result, you sit through yet another session. Many clubs charge a fee for this too.

Every RO thinks they know best. Every BoD thinks their method of verifying new members is the best. We had one fellow, Allman, who put all new members through a handgun safety course, even if they did not shoot handguns. IMO, it was designed to inflate the numbers of handgunners when they submitted a list to the CFO's office. He has done this at least three clubs. He knows it all. Just ask him.

awndray
05-22-2014, 07:08 AM
Many ranges have probationary shoots before new members can be signed off. They are designed to inform new members of the range rules and ensure that they are safe. This has been done for years by many clubs.

There is no mandatory club level range safety course, but as I said, many clubs did this to impress the CFO's office. It's nothing new. Unfortunately, because clubs make up their own safety courses, there is a lack of standardization. Of course, you cannot join another club and say that you were checked out at your last one. As a result, you sit through yet another session.

Every RO thinks they know best. Every BoD thinks their method of verifying new members is the best. We had one fellow, Allman, who put all new members through a handgun safety course, even if they did not shoot handguns. IMO, it was designed to inflate the numbers of handgunners when they submitted a list to the CFO's office. He has done this at least three clubs. He knows it all. Just ask him.

That's the practice at my club. Everybody who joins must go through a handgun safety indoctrination which includes a course of fire. Originally it was because the club was almost exclusively a handgun club. The club has since been renamed because of the varying shooting sports. Having said that, the Ontario CFO does indeed require such a course before an ATT can be issued. http://rrgc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Shooting-Club-Policy-Chief-Firearms-Office-Ontario.pdf (page 17)

Steve
05-22-2014, 07:14 AM
Yes, but I often wondered why new members who wished to shoot shotguns, rifles or are archers were put through the handgun safety course. I wondered, until I realized who was teaching it. He had his own agenda.

For those of you living in Ontario, here's a link to what the CFO's office requires fo you to become a non restricted firearms instructor. I should point out that you must recieve additional certifications to teach handguns, hunting, etc.

http://www.fseso.org/sites/default/files/cfsc_instructor_qualifications.pdf

awndray
05-22-2014, 07:22 AM
FWIW, there is no fee for the course at our club. It's included in the new member indoctrination. The agenda is made quite clear at our club. Obviously the same might not apply elsewhere.

Zinilin
05-22-2014, 02:46 PM
As of December 2013 1,960,380 Canadians held valid firearms licenses*.
Most firearms licenses holders are aware of their rights and make an effort to vote.
There were 14,823,408 votes cast in the 2011 election**.
Firearms license holders represent 13% of the participating electorate.
Mr. Harper promised to repeal bill C-68 (the firearms act) in 2002;
Mr. Harper 13% of the participating electorate are waiting.
In 2015 do you want another majority or 5 years wandering in the political wilderness?

* http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm
** http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=turn&document=index&lang=e&section=ele

Foxer
05-22-2014, 03:17 PM
Mr. Harper promised to repeal bill C-68 (the firearms act) in 2002;

First - no he didn't. What he said is that it had to be rewritten from a 'clean slate'.

Second, he first formed gov't in 2006 and the platform he's currently got a mandate for is from 2011, not 2002.

Fact is, just as he's learned from the senate issue, sometimes things that look fairly easy to do before you're in power prove much much much more complicated to do than you thought when you get in power. You can't really just 'scrap' the act and start over. The thing weedles and worms it's way into a bunch of other acts and changing it in it's entirety is a stunning amount of work.

Now - here's a question for you. In 2015, do you want a party in power that will at least work with us to make changes, or do you want to spend 5 years under the libs who will look for every way possible to screw us over?

Be careful. Remember that it's not just the cpc who'll suffer if they lose in 2015.

Zinilin
05-22-2014, 10:22 PM
Be careful. Remember that it's not just the cpc who'll suffer if they lose in 2015.

You are correct it will not be the CPC who suffer, it will be the current slate of Elected Un-Representatives.

Zinilin
05-22-2014, 10:35 PM
First - no he didn't. What he said is that it had to be rewritten from a 'clean slate'.
Mr. Harper, January, 2002:
“Bill C-68 (The Firearms Act) has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government. As leader of the official Opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly”

bettercallsaul
05-22-2014, 10:35 PM
they're taking the US "From my cold dead hands" approach, where everyone has a god-given right to a gun, even if they are natural born psychos with a history of violence and intent to do harm. That's why I'll never support them.


But we do have a God given right to own whatever property we want. And as for the natural born psychos, there is nothing anybody can do about that right now, so why should my rights be curtailed?

I've got to say Petamocto, you make some pretty weak arguments. Lots of anti-USA sentiment. To be honest, I'm disappointed.

Perhaps even some gun owners become subservient to a political class, accepting the status quo as reality. Just because Canada has gun laws, and our crime is going down, doesn't mean they are just laws, nor does it mean crime is down BECAUSE of the gun laws. I think we all know gun crime has nothing to do with gun control.

The NFA is on track with what is right & true. You can't worry that the truth is counter-productive, otherwise you're stuck tip-toeing through bullcrap.

You can't compromise with people who are fundamentally wrong (antis).

Foxer
05-22-2014, 10:45 PM
Mr. Harper, January, 2002:

That's before the CPC party was even formed. You're trying to make claims about something he said before the party even existed and pass it off as a 'cpc promise'? Nice try.
And as you'll note, he did not promise just to repeal it, but rather to replace it.



You are correct it will not be the CPC who suffer, it will be the current slate of Elected Un-Representatives.

Some of them. And some other EU's will benefit :) but - we will not go without a lot of suffering ourselves under the 'tender care' of the libs. Especially as gun owners.

You best think about it before you find out how good you have it now the hard way.

Foxer
05-22-2014, 10:48 PM
But we do have a God given right to own whatever property we want.

Unless you've got something signed by God, the only rights you have are those you are able to clearly articulate and are able and willing to defend.

Zinilin
05-23-2014, 07:45 AM
pass it off as a 'cpc promise'? Nice try.

You should try reading what is actually written. "Mr. Harper promised to repeal bill C-68 (the firearms act) in 2002;"
I wrote "Mr. Harper promised" I did not write "The CPC promised"
You should check that you don't have the same disability when listening. Hearing what is actually said and reading what is actually written are important communication skills.
I would expect this non-reading type response from an Apologist (using the on-message sound bite that 'fits best')
Are you a CPC Apologist?
Nice try.

lone-wolf
05-23-2014, 04:03 PM
Unless you've got something signed by God, the only rights you have are those you are able to clearly articulate and are able and willing to defend.

Even being 'free' is a right you can lose if you do not defend it. The right to own property, and trade voluntarily without a babysitter, was itself traded away for 'security' and now we have neither.

Petamocto
05-23-2014, 05:10 PM
I've got to say Petamocto, you make some pretty weak arguments....You can't compromise with people who are fundamentally wrong (antis).

One could argue that any premise starting with the other side automatically being wrong is flawed. Why are they wrong? Because they disagree with you? Just think of how much we could accomplish if you yelled at them that they're stupid and wrong, and they yelled at you that you're stupid and wrong! We could spend centuries accomplishing nothing, hooray!


Lots of anti-USA sentiment.

I'm not anti-American at all. My mother is American, and half my family is American, and I've experienced the awesome feeling of having my life protected by an American Apache flying over my head as I went down some very dangerous roads. I love Americans, but I am allowed to love America but still think they do some things wrong, just like I can love my wife but still not think she's 100% perfect.


But we do have a God given right to own whatever property we want.

You call my arguments weak, but claim to be given a God-given right to anything at all? As others have written, we don't have a "God-given" SFA. Show me the receipt with his signature. Anything we have now I owe to social contracts of society and constitutionally-based democratic laws written by people.


To be honest, I'm disappointed.

I'm not sure what your aim in writing this is. A younger me would write "Well go ____ yourself, then, I guess I'll go take a bottle of sleeping pills now that I don't have your approval anymore", but I genuinely want to know why you wrote it. Are you trying to sound patronizing? Are you trying to push my buttons? Do you even understand how condescending it is for an adult to say those words to another adult?

Foxer
05-23-2014, 08:11 PM
You should try reading what is actually written. "Mr. Harper promised to repeal bill C-68 (the firearms act) in 2002;"
I wrote "Mr. Harper promised" I did not write "The CPC promised"

Is that your attempt at logic? You are now claiming that what you meant is he should fulfill a promise as prime minister that he never made while a member of that party? Or before the party existed? That was your intent? :) Any other promises he made he should keep as prime minister - perhaps a new law to clean his room like he promised his mom in '73? Give me a break - you addressed that to the current prime minister and leader of the CPC party. If you're going to attempt to claim that somehow he made that committment - you would have to mean he made it as part of that organization.

Let me guess - you didn't realize the party didn't exist in 2002.

And furthermore, he STILL said there that it must be replaced - as i said, he never promised to just scrap c-98, he said he would replace it. People such as you tend to forget that - we would still have a firearms act.


You should check that you don't have the same disability when listening. Hearing what is actually said and reading what is actually written are important communication skills.

Why, did you say something? You realize that we can't actually hear you, right? I take it you've been yelling at your monitor again and wondering why people don't react? :)


I would expect this non-reading type response from an Apologist (using the on-message sound bite that 'fits best')
Are you a CPC Apologist?

aha :) The old "I can't attack the argument so I'll attack the person" tactic i see :) Hmmm - baseless demands based on unreasonable statements followed up by personal attacks, perhaps you should see if the liberals are hiring.

It's that kind of utter nonsense and foolish argument that causes the CPC to avoid working with us. When you make ignorant statements demanding actions on HALF of something he said BEFORE the current party was even formed, then you make us look childish and unreasonable. Do try to keep up and at perhaps look at the last decade since the party was actually formed when discussing what promises he should or should not live up to.

Foxer
05-23-2014, 08:13 PM
Even being 'free' is a right you can lose if you do not defend it. The right to own property, and trade voluntarily without a babysitter, was itself traded away for 'security' and now we have neither.
As predicted by ben franklin.

Yes. And the sad thing is - we have MANY ways to defend our rights in this country, the vast majority of which don't involve the rather messy and horrible business of taking up arms. The system, when used properly, is effective.

But as you point out I maintain that only those rights which can be clearly articulated and which you are able AND willing to defend are actually rights at all.

Zinilin
05-23-2014, 09:32 PM
Why, did you say something? You realize that we can't actually hear you, right? I take it you've been yelling at your monitor again and wondering why people don't react? :)

You seem to still be having problems. OK, let me parse what was written.
1. "You should try reading what is actually written."
I wrote this to indicate that you were responding to something that was not written and taht you should try reading what was actually written.

2. "You should check that you don't have the same disability when listening."
This is a continuation (of 1), asking if your inability to understand what is written is a problem common to your hearing also (that is what the 'and' in the sentence does, joins the reading issue to a potential hearing issue). In which case it may be a general comprehension issue rather that just a reading and comprehension issue.

3. "Hearing what is actually said and reading what is actually written are important communication skills."
Again you seem to not have read the "and reading" part and your brain began responding after only the "Hearing what is actually said" part. You need to complete the parsing of the sentence "and reading what is actually written are important communication skills." See the 'and' was important.

Your failed attempt to construct a straw man from what I wrote and then to argue against your own construction indicates that logic and reason may not be your strength. You snide remarks are likewise informed.

In all of your diatribe you did not actually answer my question.
Are you a CPC Apologist?

At first you denied he said it. Then when confronted with the quote, you tried re-directing to something not written. Thenwhen your re-direction was exposed you tried to make a straw man out of the exposure.

You should not have opened with a denial of what was claimed when you were ignorant of the facts; you should have asked for proof or further information.
You should take this as a teaching moment.

We are 13% of the electorate, the government works for the electorate. The voters are in charge come election time.

Foxer
05-23-2014, 09:58 PM
You seem to still be having problems. OK, let me parse what was written.
1. "You should try reading what is actually written."
I wrote this to indicate that you were responding to something that was not written and taht you should try reading what was actually written.

2. "You should check that you don't have the same disability when listening."
This is a continuation (of 1), asking if your inability to understand what is written is a problem common to your hearing also (that is what the 'and' in the sentence does, joins the reading issue to a potential hearing issue). In which case it may be a general comprehension issue rather that just a reading and comprehension issue.

3. "Hearing what is actually said and reading what is actually written are important communication skills."
Again you seem to not have read the "and reading" part and your brain began responding after only the "Hearing what is actually said" part. You need to complete the parsing of the sentence "and reading what is actually written are important communication skills." See the 'and' was important.

Your failed attempt to construct a straw man from what I wrote and then to argue against your own construction indicates that logic and reason may not be your strength. You snide remarks are likewise informed.

In all of your diatribe you did not actually answer my question.
Are you a CPC Apologist?

At first you denied he said it. Then when confronted with the quote, you tried re-directing to something not written. Thenwhen your re-direction was exposed you tried to make a straw man out of the exposure.

You should not have opened with a denial of what was claimed when you were ignorant of the facts; you should have asked for proof or further information.
You should take this as a teaching moment.

We are 13% of the electorate, the government works for the electorate. The voters are in charge come election time.

Oh dear - did you get your feelings hurt? Sorry - but following stupid with more stupid is just... well... stupid.

Your ridiculous manifesto demanding that harper keep a promise he never committed his party to or else we'll commit suicide by putting the liberals in place is the kind of foolishness that tends to get us dismissed by anyone in the gov't.

Harper as leader of the CPC has never promised to 'scrap the act', and has never said he would 'scrap' anything without replacing it. Yet this is what you demand, or else we'll have the liberals (you know, the nice people who gave us c-68) in power to hurt us worse.

And by the way - we still can't 'hear' you when you yell at the monitor. Do try to keep up.

Zinilin
05-23-2014, 10:03 PM
Today, in Ontario, 34 long time, well known supporters of the NDP sent a letter to the leader of the NDP in Ontario which in just said, 'If you do not promote the ideals of the party as it was formed then we will not vote for you in this election'.
The Conservative platform includes a promise to axe 100,000 public servants and to reduce taxation.
Even with the possibility of 100,000 public service union job losses these NDP founders and long time supporters would withhold their vote rather than see the party base taken for granted. They are more committed to their values, their roots and their base then they are to any one election or any one leader.

Are we?

Zinilin
05-23-2014, 10:05 PM
Oh .....p.
In all of your diatribe you did not actually answer my question.
Are you a CPC Apologist?

Zinilin
05-23-2014, 10:11 PM
Harper as leader of the CPC has never promised to 'scrap the act', .
"As leader of the official Opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it .."

You are correct, the word that Mr. Harper used was 'repeal' as in 'repeal Bill C-68', or 'all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68' he never said 'scrap the act'.

Foxer
05-23-2014, 10:24 PM
"As leader of the official Opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it .."

Ahhh, I think you're still missing the point of the date. The 'opposition' he refers to is the reform party. not the CPC. Leaders may lead the party, but they don't get to set the policy for the party by themselves. The reform party, which no longer exists, had it's policies. The CPC has it's policy. In no way shape or form would any commitment made by the leader of one party have anything to do with the commitments of another party, even if the leader is the same person. The reform party had a number of policies which are not the policy of the current gov't.

So - when you suggest that the current leader of the CPC be held to account or be responsible for the policy of the leader of the Reform, (a party which no longer exists), you're making an assertion which is not grounded in any kind of fact or reasonable sense.

That kind of thing makes us look bad.

When we couple it with a threat that somehow we'll try to resolve the situation by trying to throw them out and put in place a party that is pretty much bent on our destruction... in the minds of a reasonable politician or person you move from 'unreasonable' to 'nuts'. That tends to get us dismissed pretty quick.

There may come a day when our only practical option is to burn the party down and start again. We did it before. I was there. But - that lead to almost 10 years of us wandering in the darkness and the libs having free reign to steal our rights. Enjoying the whole mag restriction thing? Loving those vague and confusing laws? That's the price we paid last time. Necessary - but hardly desirable.

That day is NOT today. The cpc has worked with us, will continue to work with us, and if we play our cards right we'll chip away at the act till what's left is an almost complete re-write.

But we won't get there with chest pounding manifestos that demand that the CPC deliver on things that were never promised and threaten to blow ourselves up. That does not add to our credibility.

awndray
05-24-2014, 05:03 AM
Ahhh, I think you're still missing the point of the date. The 'opposition' he refers to is the reform party. not the CPC. Leaders may lead the party, but they don't get to set the policy for the party by themselves. The reform party, which no longer exists, had it's policies. The CPC has it's policy. In no way shape or form would any commitment made by the leader of one party have anything to do with the commitments of another party, even if the leader is the same person. The reform party had a number of policies which are not the policy of the current gov't.

So - when you suggest that the current leader of the CPC be held to account or be responsible for the policy of the leader of the Reform, (a party which no longer exists), you're making an assertion which is not grounded in any kind of fact or reasonable sense.
While this may be true, many people voted CPC because of his promise as Reformist. People are holding him to his word, and quite frankly I don't see a problem with that. It shows that they believed in him. If you're saying we shouldn't hold him accountable for his words just because his former party is no longer, then what does that say about a man's word? In this day and age, it's become apparent that one man's word means sweet **ck all.

Foxer
05-24-2014, 07:46 AM
While this may be true, many people voted CPC because of his promise as Reformist. People are holding him to his word, and quite frankly I don't see a problem with that.

The problem is he already lived up to his word. While he was official opposition for that party he did indeed use all powers afforded to him as leader and continue the reform party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

That's done. Since that time he has made other promises or stated his opinions, and that's what people SHOULD have been voting on. I mean seriously, if you're suggesting that people in 2011 were voting cpc because of something harper promised in 2002 while leading a DIFFERENT PARTY rather than voting CPC on what they were promising NOW... I think that's not accurate. I think that the vast majority voted for what he was offering today.

Imagine this - you walk into a dodge dealership and the owner says " i can sell you a truck for 20,000. Twelve years later that owner has sold and bought a ford dealership instead. You walk in and he says "well today i can sell you this ford truck for 22,000" and you say "Hold it - you promised me a truck for 20,000". "Yes, but that was 12 years ago and this is a different company and a different truck" - you feel that's unreasonable?


If you're saying we shouldn't hold him accountable for his words just because his former party is no longer, then what does that say about a man's word? First off - harper was not suggesting that he personally was going to kill the firearms act. It was pretty clear - he was speaking as leader of his party, and committing his party. Lets not pretend this is about a man's word. He has been clear about his intents and policies every election, and THAT"S what got elected.

The problem here is that there are some gun owners who have attached themselves to 'imaginary' promises that are either fulfilled or never were made. There are many who take it even further and say he promised to scrap the gun laws and believe that means we'd have no gun laws. They swear he promised that (never happened, always he said it had to be replaced with something more fair).

Every election, the party and the leader run on a new platform. They say "this is what we're offering". IF they form gov't, then they have a mandate to execute that. The next election they present a NEW platform. In between they have policy conventions, and develop the policy of the party which is going to change. You cannot simply say "well 12 years ago you had this in your platform and now i want you to live up to it even tho you didn't get elected then and you had a different platform now".

I'm sorry - but harper never ever promised to spend the rest of his life fighting to kill c-68. He said as opposition he'd fight to replace it. He did - tho it was obviously a lost cause. He as said more recently that he felt the law needed to be written from a clean slate, but unfortunately we never voted him into gov't when he said that. He did promise as part of his election campaign to kill the LGR, and that happened when the CPC formed a majority gov't.

You want him to redo the gun laws from a clean slate, attend the next policy convention and get it voted on and make it cpc policy. That's what people ACTUALLY vote on.

Zinilin
05-24-2014, 08:30 AM
It was pretty clear - he was speaking as leader of his party, and committing his party.

"As leader of the official Opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it ..."

Foxer even a poor apologist knows when to stop making things up. Mr. Harper was Not speaking as the leader of his party. He was speaking as the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not as a leader of a political party.

You seem to want to 'shout down' any discussion of collective action against the in-action of the current government. It is as if you are being paid to be here. A 'Fox in the hen house' so to speak.

We are 13% of the participating electorate. I don't fear the Liberals and I don't reward bad behavior; and I'm old enough to recognize a snake or a fox.

Foxer
05-24-2014, 09:10 AM
Mr. Harper was Not speaking as the leader of his party. He was speaking as the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not as a leader of a political party.

Ok, that's the stupidest thing i've read on the net in a while. And i've read trudeau's speeches, so it was up against some pretty stiff competition.

Let me break the sentance down for you.

As leader of the official Opposition

As leader. Yes... he's speaking as leader.

of the official Opposition

And who was the official opposiiton? the reform party.

So. As leader of the reform party.

Pretty simple. He was speaking AS LEADER of a political party. Which no longer exists


You seem to want to 'shout down' any discussion of collective action against the in-action of the current government.
Hardly - i just speak out against ridiculous nonsense. Which to date is what you're bringing to the table. Putting the liberals in at the next election is not a realistic approach to our problem.

However - if you read the various threads you'll see there's a number of things we can do which I support fully which actually can help. Nobody is suggesting sitting back and doing nothing, but doing something stupid for the sake of just doing SOMETHING is not an intelligent way to address your problems. Really - that's the kind of thinking the libs used to give us c-68 in the first place - "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it".

Here's a suggestion, and it's an honest one. Take a step back and look at what tools ACTUALLY result in real change. You need to look a little deeper than the surface, but look at how real change in gov't policy and law happens, and then look at how we can use that to make the changes we want. It's not something that happens overnight but it happens, and it happens a lot when people are dedicated to actually making change.

You've got the passion for the fight - you just need the education to go with it.

Zinilin
05-24-2014, 09:29 AM
The current government has had a majority for almost 5 years.
They clearly are unwilling to repeal bill C-68 as long as they feel that they do not have to. When in opposition they rallied against the firearms act, in government not so much.

Perhaps a five year refresher course re-learning how to oppose the firearms act is needed.

If they don't fix it Before the election, lets remove the burden of power from them and give them a long time to plan their next move.

(Foxer, I don't need to read another of your paid political announcements, Your position of self-imposed impotence is already on file)

Foxer
05-24-2014, 09:52 AM
The current government has had a majority for almost 5 years.

Dude - they were elected may 2 2011. That is 3 years and a couple of weeks. It is no where near 5 years.


They clearly are unwilling to repeal bill C-68 as long as they feel that they do not have to.

That is true - it has not been put forward and accepted at any policy conventions in the last several years and is not what was on their platform in 2011. What was on their platform was killing the LGR. And they made good on that.


When in opposition they rallied against the firearms act, in government not so much.

Yes, in part because we demanded it. But - that's all that happened: they "rallied". Nothing changed, and we got more and more crap from the libs. That was because at the time the reform party could not form gov't. They just didn't have support.

Harper personally spoke about redoing the firearms act 'from a clean slate' even after the CPC was formed, but it hasn't been what the members of the party have pushed for. As I said - the leader of the party does NOT make policy on his own. That's not how a 'party' works.

I think honestly a lot of people realized that it was almost impossible to redo the laws from scratch, and started to focus on killing off one bad part at a time. You can re-write it just fine doing that, you just take one section and rework it to kill the bad parts, and move on.

We were all behind the LGR.. but once that was gone you had a million gun owners with a million different ideas as to what to do next. No consensus, no strong message about what we wanted - just a million people going their own way and saying their own thing, with another million or three staying silent due to a lack of leadership and drive in the community to rally them.

That would be OUR fault - not theirs.


Perhaps a five year refresher course re-learning how to oppose the firearms act is needed.

If they don't fix it Before the election, lets remove the burden of power from them and give them a long time to plan their next move.

That would be fine except what you're really saying is 'lets give the liberals, who've had a long time to plan THEIR next move to take our guns away, 5 years to hurt us'.

That would be highly questionable thinking.

The CPC promised during this term to kill the LGR. They did that.

They have now committed to making changes with regards to classifications. We'll see how they do with that.

If you want to do something useful, think about organizing for the next policy convention. There will likely be one before the next election. At that convention put forward a workable policy for changes to the act and lets get it voted on and push it thru as policy. Then we have the right to hold them to that policy. Otherwise - you really don't.

And for gods sake - quit trying to put the liberals in power. I can't think why you're so fond of the idea of 5 years under the libs, but i absolutely guarantee that it won't go well for us.

(Foxer, I don't need to read another of your paid political announcements)

No, you need a good talking to about manners, and possibly a cookie and a nap. But i'm not your mother, so you'll have to see her about that.

RangeBob
05-24-2014, 02:08 PM
Pretty simple. He was speaking AS LEADER of a political party. Which no longer exists

I must have read variations on that a 1000 times in the past few years regarding that locally famous quote of Harper's.

If the stress is on the word "AS LEADER of a political party", meaning, somewhat like abortion, he has leanings but there's what he's going to do about it which is different than he leanings; and/or a political promise isn't worth the ...

If the stress is on "which no longer exists", that is having far less traction with me lately. When Reform became Conservative, its not as if they went back down to Green in terms of votes. Voters assumed that with the same MPs and Staff being involved, that their same positions and leanings would continue, and thus the ideals and goals of Reform became a huge significant portion of the ideals and goals of Conservatives. Which should include those ideals and goals where both Manning and Harper more than merely agreed but totally agreed.

Nonetheless the point is moot. 1.2 decades later his words are different. Either he's changed his mind, or his position, or both.
By all appearances, The Harper Dude has changed his mind, and now supports licencing.
It is unknown if he believes in licencing, or if he wants licencing, or if he has a definition of licencing that many could be happy with, or status quo licencing or increased licencing restrictions,
but he and the PMO with him (and somewhat between mere MPs and the press), both assert his support of licencing.


“I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on 13 June 1995:
‘Bill C-68, if passed into law will not be a good law. It will be a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent to f the governed. What should be the fate of a bad a law? It should be repealed ...’
-- Stephen Harper, on the floor of the House Of Commons. January 2002
hxxp://www.cufoa.ca/articles/licensing/licensing_09_apr_2011.html

Foxer
05-24-2014, 03:56 PM
When Reform became Conservative, its not as if they went back down to Green in terms of votes. Voters assumed that with the same MPs and Staff being involved, that their same positions and leanings would continue, and thus the ideals and goals of Reform became a huge significant portion of the ideals and goals of Conservatives. Rangebob - if that were true, then there would have been no need for a merger. The Reform/Alliance would have won elections without it.

The whole point of the merger was that the reform ideology wasn't appealing enough and the PC ideology wasn't appealing enough, so together they would create NEW policy which was appealing to everyone.

So any voter who voted thinking that the CPC policy was the same as the Reform/Alliance party was a moron. or not paying attention. They held policy conventions, this stuff was talked about, policy was formed.

PM's don't get to do just whatever they like.


By all appearances, The Harper Dude has changed his mind, and now supports licencing.

I don't recall him ever saying that he DIDN'T support licensing, or that it was ever reform policy. Every quote I've seen says he wanted to do away with c-68 but REPLACE it with something more fair. Everyone seems to think he was saying we'd return to a 'no gun law' situation, and that's pretty obviously not what he said.

He might support more reasonable licensing, not what we have now. Basically onetime life time certification. But - to say he has 'changed his mind' suggests that at one point he was calling for an end to licensing altogether and I don't ever remember him saying that. Perhaps you could point that out to me.

Petamocto
05-24-2014, 06:11 PM
...The Reform/Alliance would have won elections without it...The whole point of the merger was that the reform ideology wasn't appealing enough and the PC ideology wasn't appealing enough, so together they would create NEW policy which was appealing to everyone.

I think your identified reason of the Conservative Party eventually being successful is not correct.

The likely reason is much simpler: People like to vote Left, Centre, or Right, and as long as the Right vote was cut in half, neither could really dominate.

It would be the same thing if the Liberals and NDP merged. Even though they have somewhat different principles, they would be practically unbeatable by the Conservatives. Only right-leaning Liberals would vote Conservative instead of the new Left/Centre party.

Foxer
05-25-2014, 08:27 AM
I think your identified reason of the Conservative Party eventually being successful is not correct.

The likely reason is much simpler: People like to vote Left, Centre, or Right, and as long as the Right vote was cut in half, neither could really dominate.

It would be the same thing if the Liberals and NDP merged. Even though they have somewhat different principles, they would be practically unbeatable by the Conservatives. Only right-leaning Liberals would vote Conservative instead of the new Left/Centre party.

Well, there is obviously an element of what you suggest in the mix. It plays a role. But it was not quite that straight forward. If what you were thinking was true we'd have seen scatterings of PC and Reform seats around the country, just as we do with the libs and ndp. The ndp has seats in bc- so do the libs, The ndp has seats in ontario, so do the libs, etc etc.

But what we saw at the time was a wall at the ontario border, where the reform couldn't get squat east of that and the PC couldn't get squat west of that. It wasn't a case of vote splitting nearly as much as it was a case of ideology and policy (or more accurately the PERCEPTION of ideology and policy). Sure - vote splitting happened too but it was not significant enough to make a real difference. If you combined all the votes in all the ridings for both parties, the libs would still have won. That's why the libs scoffed when the merger happened, pointing that out and saying the CPC was no threat :)

The merger and subsequent policy conventions brought the CPC closer to the center, and gave easterners the confidence to vote for them and westerners the confidence they wouldn't be shut out again like they were with the PC.

As to what would happen if the Libs and NDP merged - it's a fascinating topic that has been studied much and modelled. Interestingly (getting back on topic a little) the results are very different depending if we're talking federal or provincial

federally - If you look at all the data, what you'd find is that as the libs moved away from the center enough to attract ndp voters, a lot of 'blue liberals' would tend to move towards the CPC. The vote is not interchangeable at all. In the long run, a lib/ndp federal party would likely actually result in more CPC gov'ts.

Provincially is another story for some reason. As we're seeing right now to a large degree... as Horwath and the ndp collapse their vote is flocking to the libs and bolstering Wynne's position (a portion is also going to the greens, which i believe is largely a protest vote and likely won't show up much for voting day). And we have seen that in other provinces as well, including here in bc when there were three parties.

I think part of that is that Hudak is appearing to be fairly right wing, while Wynne's budget is fairly far to the left - creating a stronger contrast for 'left of center' voters. There really is no 'centrist' party in this election so voters are being forced to go left or right or stay at home, and we're seeing centrist voters struggle with that decision a little. They see Hudak as 'too hard' and wynne as 'too soft' and they're not sure which way to go yet.


I'll do another update in the next few days, when I've had a chance to really sit down and go over the data.

RangeBob
05-25-2014, 10:00 AM
Reform/Alliance

Saw this today:


CPC for all intents and purposes, has crawled back to PC. There is what, 2 reform members left?

Foxer
05-25-2014, 10:20 AM
Saw this today:

Well - a little more than 2 perhaps :) and about as many PC'ers. Over a decade or so people die, people retire, etc. And we never elected that many reform to begin with (which of course was the problem).

But it is true that the CPC is changing, and we are somewhat failing to stand up and be part of that change. The party is what it's members make it, and how well are we representing ourselves within the party? I mean - we've done OK. But not brilliantly. Firearms issues are still important to the CPC, but we've fallen a long way down the priority list which means while the CPC is still open to our ideas, they don't get as much action as we need because they're not seen to 'matter' as much to the members of the party.

We have to be more engaged in that respect.

mouthpiece
05-30-2014, 09:56 AM
If YOU want to invigorate your peo gun activism and are tired of the BS in Canada then go to any NRA convention do not just join go and meet friends and learn and listen and come back with your batteries not just recharged but supercharged

Now just do it !!!

stevebc
05-30-2014, 11:04 AM
If you want to do something useful, think about organizing for the next policy convention. There will likely be one before the next election. At that convention put forward a workable policy for changes to the act and lets get it voted on and push it thru as policy. Then we have the right to hold them to that policy.


Two words:

Michelle Rempel.

Foxer
05-30-2014, 11:56 AM
Two words:

Michelle Rempel.

There you go :)

cantom
05-31-2014, 03:27 AM
The current government has had a majority for almost 5 years.
They clearly are unwilling to repeal bill C-68 as long as they feel that they do not have to. When in opposition they rallied against the firearms act, in government not so much.

Perhaps a five year refresher course re-learning how to oppose the firearms act is needed.

If they don't fix it Before the election, lets remove the burden of power from them and give them a long time to plan their next move.

(Foxer, I don't need to read another of your paid political announcements, Your position of self-imposed impotence is already on file)

Sorry guy. You're a good debater and smart enough. But Foxer is making a lot more sense.

Throw the CPC out in favour of the Liberals? Are you crazy?

What do you think we would have left in 5 years?????

cantom
05-31-2014, 03:38 AM
The Liberals under Trudeau have gone way left...witness Trudeau recruiting Adam Vaughan in TO...

I'm hoping that kind of bs backfires on him. Many LPC members/voters would find being that far left uncomfortable...

I'm saying this in hope, wish I was sure.


I think your identified reason of the Conservative Party eventually being successful is not correct.

The likely reason is much simpler: People like to vote Left, Centre, or Right, and as long as the Right vote was cut in half, neither could really dominate.

It would be the same thing if the Liberals and NDP merged. Even though they have somewhat different principles, they would be practically unbeatable by the Conservatives. Only right-leaning Liberals would vote Conservative instead of the new Left/Centre party.

Petamocto
05-31-2014, 05:56 AM
If nothing else, I am very excited for the upcoming campaigns, debates, and election next year.

Even when it was Layton vs Ignatief/Dion vs Harper, I don't think it was a exciting and dramatic as this is going to be.

I love it when politics are exciting and crazy things happen. The NDP may get their seats slashed. One of the other leaders may go down in flames. Who knows, but it be a good ride.

Petamocto
05-31-2014, 06:14 AM
Please delete. Accidental phone duplicate.

Malus
05-31-2014, 09:48 AM
Sorry guy. You're a good debater and smart enough. But Foxer is making a lot more sense.

Throw the CPC out in favour of the Liberals? Are you crazy?

What do you think we would have left in 5 years?????


Your missing the point. Either way, the guns are going whether it be a slow death with CPC or your "imagined" faster death by the Liberals/NDP. No party is on the side of gun owners. Its all an a illusion to try and convince you that you have a say in the matter.......

Foxer
05-31-2014, 10:39 AM
Your missing the point. Either way, the guns are going whether it be a slow death with CPC or your "imagined" faster death by the Liberals/NDP. No party is on the side of gun owners. Its all an a illusion to try and convince you that you have a say in the matter.......

LOL - of course you have a say in the matter :) I love how you're absolutely convinced that liberal voters can have all the say they want but cpc voters are just being tricked :)

The problem is we haven't BEEN saying much on the matter. We got lots of stuff when we did - we demanded the lgr be tossed, that happened, we demanded the marking scheme go away - that happened. we demanded they not participate in the UN arms treaty, that happened, we demanded they stop targeting gun owners for seizures when their licenses came up, that happened, etc etc etc.

But - we totally dropped the ball after that. The cpc got a majority, gave us what they promised and we.. did nothing. There's been no unified call for any specific changes, there's been little effort by our orgs to organize and rally gun owners behind a specific issue, there's really been nothing. Oh sure - individually we've screamed for stuff - a million voices asking for a million things. That is NOT how it works.

And lo and behold - the green rifle grab happens and suddenly we are once again united in our demands for action - and they respond. Surprise surprise. Here's what's concerning ME about that - after we got them going we've really done little to tell them precisely what we would like to see happen. That's what our orgs should be doing - presenting a plan and then rallying the gun community to harass the gov't to accept it.

Don't look to the gov't to explain our problems, don't look to the libs or the anti's or god or our stars. the PROBLEM is with gun owners. When we learn to show up and demand specific goals that are achievable with one united voice, we will get whatever we want.

Or, y'know, you can sit on the couch and complain about how 'unfair' it all is. But freedom isn't free, it requires work. So if you want to keep yours - get to work. The world is run by those who show up. We need to show up.

Malus
06-01-2014, 01:02 PM
Don't look to the gov't to explain our problems, don't look to the libs or the anti's or god or our stars. the PROBLEM is with gun owners. When we learn to show up and demand specific goals that are achievable with one united voice, we will get whatever we want.

Blame the victim. Yeah right, or should I say "no rights". I get your point and your love of the process, but, the process hasn't worked in "our" favor since inception. You advocate that all is solved by a system that has been broken since day 1 and that "clawing" back some pittance is a victory. How about government just leaving us the f*** alone? Instead we have to continuously battle these shenanigans as we go about living our lives and raising our families. These clowns live this bs 24/7 mucking with us. Sorry, should I quit my job and life and devote it to politics. Maybe we could all be useless eaters together changing the system to be better. Dream on friend. In my eyes joining the NFA and letting those that want to tackle this head on is the the way to go (these people devote their lives to this regardless of the party in). Join a party and help change from the inside. I was involved in the grassroots movement of Reform here in my area and watched as it was taken over by legal loopholes and crooked career politicians looking for a new "in". You advocate the same thing over and over (remember our insanity definition issue and whom we think it applies to). Let it go already. You don't like my views and I definitely don't care for yours, yet for some reason we want the same in the end. Good luck in the next election and your love for Harper and his CPCs while the kick the UN can further down the road (as shown in another thread somewhere) and delay taking any real reform on this. How many years have they held office after the ousting the Liberals? And yet, nothing really has been changed. With the amount of stirrings that have emerged from this fiasco, I'll be waiting to see what party (if any) decide to make this part of their election (or re-election). In the interim, I'll continue to write my e-mails as some suggested (like yourself) and see where it goes. Your assumption as to what party I support (Liberals for some reason), is speculation at best, which I'm gonna clarify right now. I do not support any party at the moment and the last ones I did support was CPC and Reform, so enough of your lame question to troll a thread. And on that note.........


Enough of the "TROLLING" abuse of about getting off a couch or educating yourself or any other of your insidious childish jabs that you insert when you don't like when someone doesn't fit into your perceived view on how it should go. You seem to be one of the most prolific posters from another site (CGN), that I only visit once awhile and now this one, hmmmm. Someone seems to spend too much time online pushing a specific agenda IMO.

Something for others to thing about.......

Foxer
06-01-2014, 06:09 PM
Blame the victim.

You fall asleep at the wheel and crash into a tree, you're not 'the victim', you're the idiot who should have been driving the car and not falling asleep.


the process hasn't worked in "our" favor since inception.

Of course it has. It's the only thing that HAS worked.


How about government just leaving us the f*** alone?

The gov't is elected by and manipulated by the people who show up and participate in the process. You think that the 'gov't' is like some person who just woke up one morning and decided to mess with gun owners. It doesn't work that way.

The gov't won't just 'leave us the ef alone' because the anti's won't just leave us the 'ef' alone. When they show up and say 'go mess with gun owners' we need to BE there En masse to say "or maybe you shouldn't.' Bullies don't do well when they're confronted, and we need to be there to confront. And demand back what we let them take.


Sorry, should I quit my job and life and devote it to politics

Oh please - enough with the waterworks. Policy conventions happen once every year or three. Writing a few letters to keep them on track takes about 5 minutes every now and then. A little work with the orgs, not so tough. Every 4 to 5 years maybe you donate a day or two to be a scruitineer.

NOT exactly a huge price to pay for your freedom. What, maybe 30 hours in a year? If that - that would be pretty active. Do you think you'll have to give up your job for that? For heaven's sake.


I'll be waiting to see what party (if any) decide to make this part of their election (or re-election).

Those who wait get to live with whatever those who do choose. Waiting is not how you win.


You seem to be one of the most prolific posters from another site (CGN)

Yep. Posted most of the articles there for years when it was still a new idea, organized and managed letter writers who responded to all the 'anti gun' propaganda that showed up in the papers, and you know what? It made a difference. We tracked it, and it was huge over time.

So now I"m supposed to be ashamed of that? At least I was doing something. As for trolls - i'd pin that label on a guy who sits back and says that going out and doing something for our rights is a bad idea and spends his time discouraging people.

And yeah - i DO push a specific agenda. I want to kill bad laws. Specifically, I want to kill bad gun laws. And I do something about it. You should try it.

blacksmithden
06-02-2014, 08:41 PM
This one seems to be getting a little less than civil, not to mention off topic.