PDA

View Full Version : Too Much Infighting



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Mad Hatter
07-19-2014, 10:52 AM
After reading the NFA's letter to Blaney basically yelling at him concerning the upcoming "announcement", I think I'm pretty much done with national gun associations. We have two of note. NFA and CSSA. All they do is spend their time trying to upstage one another. The NFA is constantly speaking out of turn and has knee jerk reaction after knee jerk reaction. This does nothing to garner any form of respect. Even members of the two groups are constantly jumping from one side of the fence to the other. This complete lack of cohesiveness is exactly why as a group, gun owners will fail in their bid to not be chastised by the government and public and lose more rights. Why can we not have one national organization to represent all gun owners of all disciplines? The NFA and CSSA executives are behaving exactly like the politicians they are trying to reason with. They behave with childishness and pettiness. It has become a power struggle just like we see in government. Yup. Done.

killer kane
07-19-2014, 11:23 AM
They've obviously spent too much time with the pols.

FlyingHigh
07-19-2014, 02:56 PM
I agree 100%. Neither organization will see a penny from me until they quit acting like children in a sandbox and learn to work TOGETHER!!! Find middle ground and go from there. The CSSA has the politics wrangling in hand, the NFA has the social media handle albeit one of somebody with ADHD hopped up on speed.

Here's what i propose.

1. Both groups come together for a meeting. Have a neutral facilitator and discuss what the orgs want to accomplish and what gun owners in Canada want.

2. The current CSSA branch handles the politicking, being a bit more open and communicative to members and gun owners on as much as they can. Naturally, some stuff needs to stay on the down low. At the moment though, we hear and see nothing. That's a current problem with the CSSA.

3. The current NFA branch conveys these messages and drums up support and membership to the new unified organization. They also knock off the grand standing and knee jerk announcements. Never mind how they antagonize politicians to the point where they're not allowed at meetings. It's to the point where few people take the NFA seriously anymore. That's a current problem with the NFA.

4. The goals and policies will be presented to the government in a simple, reasonable, and common sense order. We don't run around demanding CCW, full capacity mags and the removal of the classes all at one. Baby steps, one bloody thing at a time. As much as the average joe doesn't like it, that's IS how things work in politics. Slow, very slow.

5. Make sure that gun owners and non-gun owners alike know about this organization. Attend/sponsor shooting events, have posters at gun stores, buy up ad time on television networks like Wild TV or anywhere else you can, put ads in the hunting regs and in Calibre magazine. Attend town meetings whenever possible and applicable. Yes it costs money but being productive and communicative is the key to gaining donations.

I propose to call this organization the Unified Canadian Shooters Association. U.C.S.A. Or someone can come up with a better name but keep it reasonable.

I also hereby pledge an initial $500 donation when this organization become a reality. I also pledge an annual donation of $150 or more, and a purchase of a lifetime membership. Until such a reality occurs though, that money stays in my pocket.

NFA and CSSA, time to get things done.

coastal
07-19-2014, 03:47 PM
I agree...NFA is almost to the point of embarrassing on some of their facebook posts. Their NRA style utopia isn't the direction we need at this point.

Canuck
07-19-2014, 04:42 PM
I agree...NFA is almost to the point of embarrassing on some of their facebook posts. Their NRA style utopia isn't the direction we need at this point.

^^^This.^^^^^

RD777
07-19-2014, 05:09 PM
After reading the NFA's letter to Blaney basically yelling at him concerning the upcoming "announcement", I think I'm pretty much done with national gun associations. We have two of note. NFA and CSSA. All they do is spend their time trying to upstage one another. The NFA is constantly speaking out of turn and has knee jerk reaction after knee jerk reaction. This does nothing to garner any form of respect. Even members of the two groups are constantly jumping from one side of the fence to the other. This complete lack of cohesiveness is exactly why as a group, gun owners will fail in their bid to not be chastised by the government and public and lose more rights. Why can we not have one national organization to represent all gun owners of all disciplines? The NFA and CSSA executives are behaving exactly like the politicians they are trying to reason with. They behave with childishness and pettiness. It has become a power struggle just like we see in government. Yup. Done.

Well said. I agree. And it isn't just the .orgs. It is the extremist members of each of these groups that are causing issues. The Qvislings on one side and the Hotheads on the other. One side saying that there needs to be compromise, and the other saying no compromise. Well compromise goes two ways. "Quid pro quo" And the firearms community has been bending over backwards to be fair and reasonable in compromising for decades. And we keep giving up freedoms without getting much in return. That is not compromising. The CSSA seems to give in too easy and not ask for much, and hope they won't ass rape us anymore. And their communications suck balls. And the NFA's communications suck balls too. And they aren't quite on the mark with their "no compromise" slogan. It should be, "it's your turn to compromise" The LGR is not 100% dead, and the RCMP and others are still using LGR data. That is not a promise kept. And the RCMP are still screwing firearms owners. The community has also done it's part researching studies and statistics to show truth and fact on our position, so as to be able to back it up. So where has the compromise been from the government in the past 10 years? So yes indeed, "Lets compromise. It's your turn to do the compromising. ;)"

blaxsun
07-19-2014, 06:07 PM
I miss Dave Tomlinson... :(

I.C.R.
07-19-2014, 07:03 PM
I miss Dave Tomlinson... :(

here here

topher
07-19-2014, 07:29 PM
In Ontario all the clubs I know of REQUIRE a cssa membership... Its actually included in your range fees...

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Foxer
07-19-2014, 11:46 PM
The problems unfortunately go a little deeper than that. The real challenge is that neither side really understands how to put pressure on a gov't without pissing them off, nor how to build relationships effectively.

The second problem is both orgs have a history of only thinking about their members, and not maximizing their muscle by including those who may not be comfortable supporting them fully but who would be happy to participate in specific programs or campaigns.

The solutions to these problems are not difficult but the orgs tend to be fairly closed minded to outside suggestion or hiring those who have knowledge they need. Both think they're doing just fine. They're not but they can't see that and they point to their numbers to justify that - "we wouldn't have so many people if we weren't doing the right things'.

They really need to focus on how to get solid results. If they did that - the memberships would follow and they'd find that success lead to more members which leads to more success which leads to more members etc etc.

3MTA3
07-20-2014, 02:54 AM
In Ontario all the clubs I know of REQUIRE a cssa membership... Its actually included in your range fees...
There is a mix of CSSA, OFAH and CFI affiliations for insurance purposes.

iceshadow
07-20-2014, 04:15 AM
NFA's insensitive and idiotic Moncton gaff took the cake for PR damage. CBC was delighted to share that outburst as much as possible.

It's really too bad, because we need advocacy, but the proper kind, not clowns.

I won't be renewing my membership either.

Shalimar
07-20-2014, 08:24 AM
NFA's insensitive and idiotic Moncton gaff took the cake for PR damage. CBC was delighted to share that outburst as much as possible.

It's really too bad, because we need advocacy, but the proper kind, not clowns.

I won't be renewing my membership either.

The action was one of an intelligent choice in timing however. If done at that time it got big attention from the MSM.. if it was delayed it would be as usual ignored by the MSM.

It's a matter of the lesser of two evils.. and I personally agree with the NFA far more than the CSSA. (I could elaborate but that is more for another thread)

What this latest BS does say though is that the Gov is more afraid of the NFA since they refuse to bend over for them while the CSSA continues to kiss their asses.


Simple fact is if the Harper gov does not keep his promise to repeal all of the firearms act (aka c-17 / c-68) they will loose support.. but if they do keep that promise they only stand to gain since they won't loose voters from that action and it would instead help bolster them since it would be a politician actually keeping a promise for once (we'd have to call Guinness!)


That said there is infighting.,.. between the NFA, CSSA CFI etc etc... but that is another story and should be irrelevant to any meeting with our Gov on this issue.


Not to mention other info I've been given such as Tony's primary source of income is from being on the "firearms council".. which poses a rather large conflict of interest to say the least.

Malus
07-20-2014, 08:36 AM
The first step begins with all of us. Quit bad mouthing the other guys. This thread starts talking about cohesion between the two (good start), yet, the bashing begins immediately with everyone talking about what they hate about the other organization. STFU already and practice what you preach. It starts here, grassroots members. Be mature enough to hold your tongue and think of pro-active ways of accomplishing the goal instead of fueling the discourse. I swear that there are numerous posters here "intentionally" egging this on. When someone bad mouths the other side, shut them down immediately and remind them that we can do more together than wasting our time fighting amongst ourselves.......

kennymo
07-20-2014, 08:43 AM
The first step begins with all of us. Quit bad mouthing the other guys. This thread starts talking about cohesion between the two (good start), yet, the bashing begins immediately with everyone talking about what they hate about the other organization. STFU already and practice what you preach. It starts here, grassroots members. Be mature enough to hold your tongue and think of pro-active ways of accomplishing the goal instead of fueling the discourse. I swear that there are numerous posters here "intentionally" egging this on. When someone bad mouths the other side, shut them down immediately and remind them that we can do more together than wasting our time fighting amongst ourselves.......

Well put. I think there is a time and a place for both the loud and proud style of the NFA and the back room wheeling and dealing of the CSSA. I'm a member of both. My only wish is that they'd coordinate, we all know they're too bitter towards one another to assimilate, but would a liaison officer or something to that effect be too much to ask?

Malus
07-20-2014, 08:48 AM
Well put. I think there is a time and a place for both the loud and proud style of the NFA and the back room wheeling and dealing of the CSSA. I'm a member of both. My only wish is that they'd coordinate, we all know they're too bitter towards one another to assimilate, but would a liaison officer or something to that effect be too much to ask?


If people could learn to put their pride on the back burner, then maybe. A rep from both sides sitting down could probably clear up and hash out something over a afternoon of coffee and donuts and realize that we're closer on things than we think. Our goals are the same, so whats the problem? I'm sure that executive members belong to both forums and thus, might read this, or , someone suggest it to their higher ups and make it a public announcement, so that "all" firearms owners and politicians know we're serious......

Foxer
07-20-2014, 10:10 AM
Simple fact is if the Harper gov does not keep his promise to repeal all of the firearms act (aka c-17 / c-68) they will loose support.. but if they do keep that promise they only stand to gain since they won't loose voters from that action and it would instead help bolster them since it would be a politician actually keeping a promise for once (we'd have to call Guinness!)
I'm sorry but that's just not accurate.

First off - harper has not promised to repeal all of the firearms act since the CPC was formed. The closest he's come is to say it needs to be re-written and should be done from a clean slate, and that was several elections ago and is no longer part of the CPC policy. If we want it back on policy, we need to attend policy conventions and get it made policy again, but that's a discussion for another time.

Secondly, if all firearms law was repealed as you suggest, it would cost him votes. Sorry - that's just the way it is, the public does NOT support having no firearms laws, and even cpc supporters would have a problem with it.

But - more importantly - even if it didn't cost HIM votes it would drive the OTHER parties voters out in droves.Voter turn out would LEAP up for the anti's, and chances are it wouldn't move an inch for the CPC. That means defeat .

Think i'm wrong? Look at Hudak. His '100,000 job cut' didn't cost HIM any supporters - he got as many or more votes as the last election. BUT - the liberal supporters turned out in much higher numbers as a result to 'stop' him. And now wynne has a landslide majority.

The current gov't did not promise to repeal the FA. Sorry it just didn't. And doing so would be political death. It isn't going to happen.

What CAN happen is that we re-write a section at a time and give it the death of a thousand cuts - eventually winding up with what we want and seeing improvements all the way along. Which (getting back to the original thread) is why it's SO critical that we have EFFECTIVE gun lobby orgs helping to organize the firearms community so that we're constantly asking for the next series of changes and getting them, till we've got what we want.

Petamocto
07-20-2014, 10:15 AM
http://hotmeme.net/media/i/3/8/dSI-people-are-becoming-to-loose-about-losing-their-karma.jpg

(Double grammar nazi points for identifying "that" should read "who").

X-man
07-20-2014, 02:36 PM
NFA's insensitive and idiotic Moncton gaff took the cake for PR damage. CBC was delighted to share that outburst as much as possible.

It's really too bad, because we need advocacy, but the proper kind, not clowns.

I won't be renewing my membership either.

Go read the NFA release. It led with condolences to the families. It contained only facts. The gun grabbers were already starting to make political hay off the tragedy and calls had already gone out for semi-auto bans. The NFA derailed their entire strategy and while the Coalition for Gun Control supporters concentrated their ire on attacking the NFA they missed their window of opportunity to call for renewed blanket bans.

As for one org trying to "one-up" the other, the NFA has never gone to Ottawa and talked smack about the CSSA, nor has the NFA deliberately gone after the CSSA in any national news release or interview. The focus has always been on gaining our objectives. First and foremost has been the repeal and replacement of the C-17/C-68 Firearms Act.

NFA has made no bones about its opposition to "incremental" reform. To accept it is to grant the Conservatives carte blanche to keep the firearms community on the hook indefinitely rather than delivering on their promise. The CSSA leadership is content to accept this "carrot & stick" routine because it means job security and continued access and invites to the "cool kids" parties. If you want to continue to sit at the cool kids table at lunch, you learn to toe the party line and not upset them or speak out of turn. But you can certainly talk crap about the kids they don’t like, or more properly resent for pulling their arse out of a jam and now are calling in that chit.

In that kind of an environment it is easy to lose sight of what should be important and who your real friends are. The real danger of joining such a clique, however, is that you can become all too easily compromised.

When Steve Torino went to New York City and the UN, he went on the Government's dime and as part of Canada's delegation and in support of the Harper government's agenda. In contrast, the NFA paid their own way and presented as an officially recognized independent NGO representing the Canadian Firearms community only. Again, NFA delegates focused on the issues, not talking smack about CSSA. Unfortunately, history has a habit of repeating itself.

I personally don't give a crap who gets the credit, I just want the Firearms Act repealed and replaced, and my gun rights protected. I know for a fact that NFA has made multiple overturns to CSSA to work cooperatively since 2007 and the passing of David Tomlinson. ALL have been rejected. Unfortunately, as the NFA has grown, so too has the hostility directed towards it from its brother org. Nevertheless, the NFA remains willing to work cooperatively with CSSA, but it takes two to Tango. The NFA is not the enemy, so why work so hard to undermine a brother gun org?

stevebc
07-20-2014, 03:10 PM
The first step begins with all of us. Quit bad mouthing the other guys. This thread starts talking about cohesion between the two (good start), yet, the bashing begins immediately with everyone talking about what they hate about the other organization. STFU already and practice what you preach. It starts here, grassroots members. Be mature enough to hold your tongue and think of pro-active ways of accomplishing the goal instead of fueling the discourse. I swear that there are numerous posters here "intentionally" egging this on. When someone bad mouths the other side, shut them down immediately and remind them that we can do more together than wasting our time fighting amongst ourselves.......

This. Thank you Malus.

The thread is entitled "Too much Infighting", and immediately devolved into another NFA bashing thread.

So much for this place taking the higher road: it looks just like CGN as far as org bashing goes.

I made it a point since the reclassifications began NOT to bash the other guys. It would be nice if the NFA haters here would just keep it to themselves, instead of pounding the wedge ever deeper.

Petamocto
07-20-2014, 03:18 PM
As a complete outsider here with no horse in the race, maybe this turned into "another NFA bashing thread" for a reason.

Just because an organization claims to do something doesn't mean they are automatically good at it.

Nothing would be better than either these orgs learning their lesson, or another org starts to fill the void, and they actually know what they're doing.

x0ra
07-20-2014, 03:23 PM
While we're at it, let's all cooperate with the FQT as well.

bearhunter
07-20-2014, 03:37 PM
Foxer, go back and look at the promise Harper made in the HOC concerning C68. He never did promise to repeal the act, he did promise to rewrite it though.

He saw right off that it was not good law for the government or the people of Canada.

What he didn't mention was that the controversial act was given to the Liberals by Kim Campbell in a rough draft form that she came very close to having passed in that form before she was headed off and a night sitting of back benchers and some of the more astute as well as BLUE TORIES that still had some influence bypassed by proposing and promoting C51. Mulroney's transgressions and Campbell's outright hatred of firearms and their enthusiasts spelled the final demise of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I don't remember and can't confirm whether Harper was one of the PCP MPs that went to the midnight meeting of backbenchers where C51 was first proposed. I do remember one of those MPs on the CBC news proclaiming they did it to stop the far more egregious bill Campbell wanted to propose.

Well, they did manage to delay it for two years and Kim Campbell was given a plumb post in Los Angeles as Canada's Councilor General. Now, if memory serves, she is on her third husband and raping the minds of the students she socially engineers.

bearhunter
07-20-2014, 03:54 PM
As a complete outsider here with no horse in the race, maybe this turned into "another NFA bashing thread" for a reason.

Just because an organization claims to do something doesn't mean they are automatically good at it.

Nothing would be better than either these orgs learning their lesson, or another org starts to fill the void, and they actually know what they're doing.


There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either org. They both just need to conduct themselves differently. They have started though. With the help of Ed Burlew and Solomon Friedman they are attacking on HOLY ground. The courts.

There have been a few posts here, one from rangebob that portrays the actions of the NRA. The portrayal is designed to promote NO COMPROMISE. That just isn't the case.

The NRA/Gunowners of America etc often compromise. They have learned the hard way not to fight battles that will bankrupt them even if they win. The NFA and CSSA have exactly the same problem.

If you want the NFA or the CSSA to be as effective as the NRA and other US gun orgs, they need to be funded with lots of money and volunteers. Even then, it took the NRA and other orgs 50+ years to make some real advances and most of those have been done in the last 15.

I watched one of their programs explaining their methodology. It is effective to the point where US politicians are terrified to sign onto law that will PO the NRA and other gun orgs. If they do, they can expect a well funded candidate from the TEA PARTY to make substantial inroads into their constituencies and maybe even lose the first time around. When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds do follow.

Many here also say we have the right to keep and bear arms. Not that I can find. What I can find IMHO is that we have the right to defend ourselves with and by whatever means handy at the time we are in jeopardy. No explicit implication as to what can be used.

I may be completely wrong on the last statement so please correct me if I am. Wouldn't be the first and won't be the last time.

That is where the US has their great advantage. They have the right and the perception that the right pertains to individuals rather than militias or states or other enforcement arms of government.

We need more involvement in the political parties. ALL OF THEM.

Until we can exert influence at all levels of the parties we will languish in our efforts. That is a given.

If the leaders of the nation feel they can operate in an inappropriate manner, without retribution at the polls, they will.

Foxer
07-20-2014, 05:21 PM
Foxer, go back and look at the promise Harper made in the HOC concerning C68. He never did promise to repeal the act, he did promise to rewrite it though. Quite true, and it was CPC policy.
HOwever - they lost that election. And policy changed. They still acknowledge it as a bad law but they're not really interested in re-writing it from a 'blank slate' anymore.

Trying to hold him to the party policy that was 10 years ago is a little like walking into a store and demanding they sell you their goods at 10 year old prices. "sorry sir but our latest flyers do show our current price." "yeah - but i have this flyer from ten years ago and I expect you to honour it!" Doesn't work that way as we all know :)

If we want to put that BACK on the table as a promise we need to get the party to buy into it at a convention - then they campaign on it and we hold them to it.


He saw right off that it was not good law for the government or the people of Canada.

True, and I believe he still thinks that way. Like i've pointed out before - no gov't has ever repealed any part of the gun laws for us (unless it was to replace it with something worse :) ). Now - the CPC spent 6 years trying to kill a major part of the law, and did it as soon as they had a majority and here 3 years later they're willing to make more significant changes. Harper obviously is willing to accept that changes still need to be made, and if we reward them they'll likely continue to see it that way.


What he didn't mention was that the controversial act was given to the Liberals by Kim Campbell in a rough draft form that she came very close to having passed in that form before she was headed off and a night sitting of back benchers and some of the more astute as well as BLUE TORIES that still had some influence bypassed by proposing and promoting C51. Mulroney's transgressions and Campbell's outright hatred of firearms and their enthusiasts spelled the final demise of the Progressive Conservative Party.

He didn't - but he didn't like mulroney and he HATED kim.


I don't remember and can't confirm whether Harper was one of the PCP MPs that went to the midnight meeting of backbenchers where C51 was first proposed. I do remember one of those MPs on the CBC news proclaiming they did it to stop the far more egregious bill Campbell wanted to propose.
.
He left the PC party in 87 to help found the reform party. He was already sick of their red tory crap by then.

Harper may have become a little more pragmatic since becoming PM, but at his core is still a severe dislike for many of these bad laws and for seeing people in the west screwed by eastern laws. The thing is, he still needs to be in power to do anything and he knows it. So - he has to look at his priorities, and he's got to look at what will bring him votes and what will drive the opposition voters to go to the polls in large numbers.

When we show up in large numbers asking for the same thing - they tend to respond. They did with the LGR, they did with the UN marking scheme, they did with the UN arms treaty, they are with the Swiss arms thing.

But they're not going to move on their own, and they're not interested in vague generalizations like 'scrap c-68' or 'fix the firearms laws". If we get our crap together and kill two or three bad sections of that law every term, we'll pretty much get where we want in short order.

And we have to make peace with the fact we're not going back to 'no laws' for guns in Canada. We can certainly get a hell of a lot closer tho, and keep the bureaucratic crap to a minimum.

Jarlath
07-20-2014, 05:51 PM
Too many people are quick to judge and take offence at the drop of the hat. Rumour? Jump on it and propagate it (Like the one that the Firearms Committee is a primary source of income for Tony B. Do you actually believe that???? If so, I have lots of bridges to sell you!)
Forgetting to include information due to lack of information. (Steve Torino on the Canadian delegation at the UN on behalf of Canada's Government, not CSSA; but not knowing that Tony B was there on CSSA/CILA's dime.)

The unfortunate thing is that infighting that is occurring is not from the upper echelons of NFA & CSSA, but those fervent supporters who are fast to leap on any perceived attack against their preferred org.

Everyone has their own opinion and perceived understanding of the fight we are all engaged in. But make no mistake, we all need to fight; be it through financial support, written efforts, educating the unknowing or being hands-on/boots to the ground. For those who are helping in any way, keep it up!
I hope that everyone supports at least ONE, if not BOTH orgs.

JRW (QOR)
07-21-2014, 04:30 PM
I'm sorry but that's just not accurate.

First off - harper has not promised to repeal all of the firearms act since the CPC was formed. The closest he's come is to say it needs to be re-written and should be done from a clean slate, and that was several elections ago and is no longer part of the CPC policy. If we want it back on policy, we need to attend policy conventions and get it made policy again, but that's a discussion for another time.

Secondly, if all firearms law was repealed as you suggest, it would cost him votes. Sorry - that's just the way it is, the public does NOT support having no firearms laws, and even cpc supporters would have a problem with it.

But - more importantly - even if it didn't cost HIM votes it would drive the OTHER parties voters out in droves.Voter turn out would LEAP up for the anti's, and chances are it wouldn't move an inch for the CPC. That means defeat .

Think i'm wrong? Look at Hudak. His '100,000 job cut' didn't cost HIM any supporters - he got as many or more votes as the last election. BUT - the liberal supporters turned out in much higher numbers as a result to 'stop' him. And now wynne has a landslide majority.

The current gov't did not promise to repeal the FA. Sorry it just didn't. And doing so would be political death. It isn't going to happen.

What CAN happen is that we re-write a section at a time and give it the death of a thousand cuts - eventually winding up with what we want and seeing improvements all the way along. Which (getting back to the original thread) is why it's SO critical that we have EFFECTIVE gun lobby orgs helping to organize the firearms community so that we're constantly asking for the next series of changes and getting them, till we've got what we want.

^^ This!

Yet many do not understand, and when you try to explain it, you get dumped on. I'll continue to work from within the party.

Strewth
07-21-2014, 04:49 PM
^^ This!

Yet many do not understand, and when you try to explain it, you get dumped on. I'll continue to work from within the party.

Hi JRW, welcome to GOC:). I always look forward to your posts on CGN, I hope you can replicate them here.

CLW .45
07-22-2014, 12:10 PM
I agree 100%. Neither organization will see a penny from me until they quit acting like children in a sandbox and learn to work TOGETHER!!! Find middle ground and go from there. The CSSA has the politics wrangling in hand, the NFA has the social media handle albeit one of somebody with ADHD hopped up on speed.

Here's what i propose.

1. Both groups come together for a meeting. Have a neutral facilitator and discuss what the orgs want to accomplish and what gun owners in Canada want.

2. The current CSSA branch handles the politicking, being a bit more open and communicative to members and gun owners on as much as they can. Naturally, some stuff needs to stay on the down low. At the moment though, we hear and see nothing. That's a current problem with the CSSA.

3. The current NFA branch conveys these messages and drums up support and membership to the new unified organization. They also knock off the grand standing and knee jerk announcements. Never mind how they antagonize politicians to the point where they're not allowed at meetings. It's to the point where few people take the NFA seriously anymore. That's a current problem with the NFA.

4. The goals and policies will be presented to the government in a simple, reasonable, and common sense order. We don't run around demanding CCW, full capacity mags and the removal of the classes all at one. Baby steps, one bloody thing at a time. As much as the average joe doesn't like it, that's IS how things work in politics. Slow, very slow.

5. Make sure that gun owners and non-gun owners alike know about this organization. Attend/sponsor shooting events, have posters at gun stores, buy up ad time on television networks like Wild TV or anywhere else you can, put ads in the hunting regs and in Calibre magazine. Attend town meetings whenever possible and applicable. Yes it costs money but being productive and communicative is the key to gaining donations.

I propose to call this organization the Unified Canadian Shooters Association. U.C.S.A. Or someone can come up with a better name but keep it reasonable.

I also hereby pledge an initial $500 donation when this organization become a reality. I also pledge an annual donation of $150 or more, and a purchase of a lifetime membership. Until such a reality occurs though, that money stays in my pocket.

NFA and CSSA, time to get things done.

Okay, read your bolded statement above.

Now, tell us what your priorities are, and why.

harbl_the_cat
07-22-2014, 02:54 PM
In Ontario all the clubs I know of REQUIRE a cssa membership... Its actually included in your range fees...

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Interesting, I've been in three clubs in Alberta, and I think insurance for those clubs is provided through the NFA. Anyone else know if this is true?

I also remember speaking to Tony B. at an Easter Calgary gun show a few years back about volunteering. He mentioned the CSSA doesn't have a heavy Alberta presence or much Alberta representation.

NFA is headquarted in Edmonton (Alberta), CSSA in Etobicoke (Ontario).

Wouldn't it be funny if the NFA/CSSA feud really ended up just being another East vs West issue?

I mean, look at the Alberta Provincial Rifle Association website:

http://www.albertarifle.com/membership.htm


Membership in the APRA also includes NFA membership, insurance and benefits

The APRA is MASSIVE, with easily over 1000 members (if not more). It's probably one of the largest (if not the largest) shooters associations in Southern Alberta...

Hmm... so I'm an NFA member and I didn't even realize it...

I think MVMA in Olds also automatically had NFA insurance and membership, as well as a club up in Edson I once joined (I think).

Remember, the majority of 858 owners were in Alberta/BC, and the CSC and TSE (Calgary based) were the main importers of Swiss Arms... Wolvarine (858 importer) is based in Manitoba.

Is it possible in choosing Ontario based and representing CSSA, the Tories are blatantly pandering to the rural Ontario vote, not the Western Canadian vote that has traditionally gone Conservative?

Should it come as any surprise the Conservatives throw their core constituencies under the bus to appeal to contested ridings in the East?

Hmmmm.... federal democracy... Nothing like being a pawn on a political party's chessboard... To hell with them (the Tories, that is), and to hell with all the politics.

Allsteel
07-22-2014, 02:54 PM
The problems unfortunately go a little deeper than that. The real challenge is that neither side really understands how to put pressure on a gov't without pissing them off, nor how to build relationships effectively.

The second problem is both orgs have a history of only thinking about their members, and not maximizing their muscle by including those who may not be comfortable supporting them fully but who would be happy to participate in specific programs or campaigns.



Although I'm fairly new to firearms ownership I agree with this 100% considering some of the horrible attitudes I've encountered lately. Push and the govt is just gonna push back. And some gun owners just seem to be too thick to understand that there's a way of communicating effectively and that their way will yield opposite desired results. I'm not much of an activist, guns are just a hobby for me, I'll be fine with or without them, I couldn't give a f*** about being on the front lines of challenging the FA and kicking and screaming at the RCMP about it but that doesn't mean I won't support those who do.

6MT
07-22-2014, 03:54 PM
Attitude is a major problem in other places ;-)


so is maturity

topher
07-22-2014, 04:12 PM
Interesting, I've been in three clubs in Alberta, and I think insurance for those clubs is provided through the NFA. Anyone else know if this is true?


Wouldn't it be funny if the NFA/CSSA feud really ended up just being another East vs West issue?



That is why clubs here in Ontario require cssa membership... And ya I feel like a lot of is east vs. West. Even this site.. I feel is very west..

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

harbl_the_cat
07-22-2014, 04:16 PM
That is why clubs here in Ontario require cssa membership... And ya I feel like a lot of is east vs. West. Even this site.. I feel is very west..

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

I agree...

And it's not as if as a Westerner, I dislike the East or Easterners. I just hate the East/West political dynamic.

Moreover, to the subject of infighting, I think it's quite indicative of fundamentally differing, irreconcilable regional differences.

Sighting the Alberta Provincial Rifle Association, for example, just look at their homepage, quoting their bylaws - particularly section 2(d)


The Alberta Provincial Rifle Association (“A.P.R.A.”) is a not-for-profit organization created for the purpose of promoting marksmanship
in the province of Alberta.

THE OBJECT OF THE A.P.R.A. IS:

(1) To promote in every lawful way the interests of small arms marksmanship in the Province of Alberta.
(2) Without Restricting the generality of the Foregoing:
(a) To promote annual prize meetings for individuals and teams and to offer prizes for skill in shooting.
(b) To encourage the establishment and maintenance of suitable ranges through legislation and private means.
(c) To assist in the formation of shooting clubs.
(d) To create public interest for the encouragement of small arms shooting both as a sport and as a necessary means of national defence

Can you think of ANYWHERE else in the country where any civilian shooting association would publicly make this claim?

While a bit redneck, I think the correct verbiage should be "The objective of the A.P.R.A. is" but that's kind of splitting hairs, it clearly illustrates a point.

According to Ottawa, it is not a lawful reason in Canada for a private citizen to acquire and own a restricted firearm "To create public interest for the encouragement of small arms shooting both as a sport and as a necessary means of national defence."

Clearly, a large number of Albertans seem to think otherwise (I among them).

topher
07-22-2014, 04:23 PM
I think the Ontario rifle association is similar... Well without the necessary means part...

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

harbl_the_cat
07-22-2014, 04:34 PM
I think the Ontario rifle association is similar... Well without the necessary means part...

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Well, they certainly state that's a part of their history. I can't seem to find their by-laws EXPLICITLY outlining that is one of their associations objectives, mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up someday with the APRA that it's not "politically correct" in this day and age.

http://www.ontariorifleassociation.ca


ORA HISTORY
The Ontario Rifle Association was formed on April 30, 1868, not by the prompting of some mercurial whim, but as a positive defense measure, which had originated in Great Britain less than a decade earlier and moved swiftly through the Dominions. The first Prize Meeting did not take place until the following year, 1869. This, along with other interruptions such as national emergencies and shifts of shooting sites, accounts for the disparity between the age of the Association and the number of annual Prize Meetings it has conducted.

That first ORA Prize Meeting was quite a gala affair attracting dignitaries, celebrities and more than 500 competitors. The venue was a newly constructed range on Toronto’s Garrison Common the site of which would one day give way to the burgeoning needs of the Canadian National Exhibition. Snider Enfields, the first breechloaders, were used engaging iron targets at various distances back to 1000 yards.

The entry was restricted to active, serving members of the Militia in the appropriate uniforms of their various units. The entry fee for most individual matches was 25 cents, but the prize for a first place was very generous; a 0.577 inch Snider Enfield rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition going to the winner of The President’s match, for instance, and a prize Berkshire pig for another match. Entries, after that first Prize meeting, settled down to between 200 and 300.

The Metford rifle appeared in 1871, but the high note of that year was the 20-member, ORA team to the NRA Prize Meeting at Wimbledon, England, the first team not only from Canada, but also the first from any of Britain’s territories. (Wimbledon would eventually become the site of the famous Tennis matches while the British NRA would move to its current location; the tiny village of Bisley.)

After some years of pressure from the Canadian National Exhibition hierarchy to take over the Garrison Common ranges, the ORA received an offer it couldn’t refuse; it was awarded property to set up its ranges at Long Branch, considerably west of Toronto. Untold millions of visitors to the CNE would subsequently tread the ground of that old Garrison Common Range comparatively few of whom would ever know that the area had been swept by rifle fire for more than 20 years.

Over the ensuing years until after WWI, evolutionary changes took place at the ORA: canvas targets were adopted and rifle choices progressed from “Long” Lee-Enfield through Lee-Metford and Martini-Henry to Ross. Moveable rear sights and apertures were adopted and Pte.T. Hayhurst was the first ORA member to win the Sovereign’s Prize in England. 1912 shows an entry of 415. In 1919 the “Smelly”, or Short Magazine Lee-Enfield of the war years, made its debut and would remain as the principle arm until after WWII. Also, Lewis and Vickers machine-gun competitions became a fixture at the matches.

With competitions suspended during WWII, renewal commenced post war and by 1949 the competitions settled into four separate prize meetings: Military Rifle, (No. 4) Small-bore, Service conditions and Bren light-machine-gun. Military Rifle was designated SRB and Service Conditions was SRA. The SRB allowed use of micrometer sights and a sling while SRA required military sight and no sling. Popularity of the Bren matches reached its zenith in 1953 when 76 teams competed.

Because of urban and industrial development Long Branch ranges were closed after the1957, and final, ORA Prize meeting there. For a couple of years the meeting was held at Connaught ranges, Ottawa, before moving to Winona in the greater Niagara peninsular. Also, the change of rifles and ammunition calibres, by the military, eventually became a problem as No 4 ammunition supplies shrank. Commercial rifles were introduced to accommodate and do so to the present. Competitor marking would also appear at many venues thus improving accuracy in target marking. By 1970 the V-ring was introduced as a tie-breaker

By its very nature our discipline, as others, is subject to evolutionary and venue changes. The ORA’s move to its current location at Camp Borden for the Prize Meeting exemplifies that change is, indeed, a constant.

topher
07-22-2014, 05:05 PM
Well, they certainly state that's a part of their history. I can't seem to find their by-laws EXPLICITLY outlining that is one of their associations objectives, mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up someday with the APRA that it's not "politically correct" in this day and age.

http://www.ontariorifleassociation.ca

They also have an 800yd? Range at Borden... That as a member of Ora you can shoot at.. (On occasion)
In like the Alberta one.. I don't think u require a membership for nfa or cssa.
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

awndray
07-22-2014, 05:23 PM
That is why clubs here in Ontario require cssa membership... And ya I feel like a lot of is east vs. West. Even this site.. I feel is very west..

I don't know about other Ontario clubs, but I know that for one of mine, the CSSA membership requirement is indeed due to insurance requirements. The club decided to go with the CSSA for club insurance (not individual member insurance) because it suited our members' wants and needs better than what the NFA was offering. They all get the insurance from 1 of 2 parent companies, and CSSA has the best coverage for what we do. OFAH & NFA policies required "pay to play" for guests,CSSA just required them to be signed in.

Allsteel
07-22-2014, 05:41 PM
That is why clubs here in Ontario require cssa membership... And ya I feel like a lot of is east vs. West. Even this site.. I feel is very west..

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk


You HAVE to be a CSSA member to join a shooting range in Ontario? Is that because it's a Liberal dominated province?

topher
07-22-2014, 05:42 PM
You HAVE to be a CSSA member to join a shooting range in Ontario? Is that because it's a Liberal dominated province?

Not all clubs require it. Just most that I've looked at.. Some clubs require OFAH it's for insurance.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

awndray
07-22-2014, 05:43 PM
Read my previous post. The requirement is for insurance. A member could opt for what the NFA offers if he or she chooses so. It's just a matter of providing proof of insurance. Most clubs align themselves with the CSSA because they feel that's what's best for the members.

TSE JR
07-23-2014, 08:04 AM
Read my previous post. The requirement is for insurance. A member could opt for what the NFA offers if he or she chooses so. It's just a matter of providing proof of insurance. Most clubs align themselves with the CSSA because they feel that's what's best for the members.

The issues go deep, but the alignment with CSSA or the NFA (depending on where you are) I suspect is primarily out of convenience:

When the range regulations came into effect in 1994 (ish), there was a requirement for clubs to hold liability insurance. The firearms organizations quickly negotiated this and offered it to member clubs. However, as with most things in life, it came with strings attached. The insurance companies insisted that every member also have the insurance which meant that most clubs had to require a membership in the "issuing" organization. In Ontario (east), the CSSA was dominant, so it won the east. In the west, the NFA was dominant so it was adopted by many clubs and therefore the membership.

To complicate things, the Ontario CFO has also imposed the club level safety course or club safety certification (to pass off the liability) which further created a cottage industry for the CSSA. Some clubs have rightfully kept the crap to a minimum. However, others have grabbed hold of this golden ring to limit membership or to create self-imposed hurdles.

What this forced membership has done is, in my opinion only, allow the national organizations (NFA and CSSA) to get lazy as the membership dues, of which they do forward a portion to the insurer, allow them to fund whatever they want with little oversight.

The other "national" organization; The CFI, has in my opinion stayed out of the fray (and name calling) and should be commended.

In Alberta, we few commercial (with a non-profit club) are lucky in that we have been able to stay neutral as we provide our own insurance for our membership. It also means we do not have to impose membership on our clients.

I know for our Target Sports club in Ontario where membership is required (at this time), we cut cheques to the CSSA every month which pays a salary or two.

From what I understand (with today's announcements); if an ATT becomes a simple condition of a license, this imposed membership should come to an end as long as a club can get it's own insurance as we do in Alberta.

Complicated and simple all at teh same time.

JR

awndray
07-23-2014, 08:08 AM
What this forced membership has done is, in my opinion only, allow the national organizations (NFA and CSSA) to get lazy as the membership dues, of which they do forward a portion to the insurer, allow them to fund whatever they want with little oversight.
I'm with you on that one. I'm not impressed by how the orgs have been operating.


From what I understand (with today's announcements); if an ATT becomes a simple condition of a license, this imposed membership should come to an end as long as a club can get it's own insurance as we do in Alberta.
Wouldn't that be nice, eh?

RD777
07-23-2014, 08:37 AM
While everyone is waiting for the announcement.....Call the CPC and tell them we are watching them. 1-866-808-8407

harbl_the_cat
07-25-2014, 12:25 PM
The issues go deep, but the alignment with CSSA or the NFA (depending on where you are) I suspect is primarily out of convenience:

When the range regulations came into effect in 1994 (ish), there was a requirement for clubs to hold liability insurance. The firearms organizations quickly negotiated this and offered it to member clubs. However, as with most things in life, it came with strings attached. The insurance companies insisted that every member also have the insurance which meant that most clubs had to require a membership in the "issuing" organization. In Ontario (east), the CSSA was dominant, so it won the east. In the west, the NFA was dominant so it was adopted by many clubs and therefore the membership.

To complicate things, the Ontario CFO has also imposed the club level safety course or club safety certification (to pass off the liability) which further created a cottage industry for the CSSA. Some clubs have rightfully kept the crap to a minimum. However, others have grabbed hold of this golden ring to limit membership or to create self-imposed hurdles.

What this forced membership has done is, in my opinion only, allow the national organizations (NFA and CSSA) to get lazy as the membership dues, of which they do forward a portion to the insurer, allow them to fund whatever they want with little oversight.

The other "national" organization; The CFI, has in my opinion stayed out of the fray (and name calling) and should be commended.

In Alberta, we few commercial (with a non-profit club) are lucky in that we have been able to stay neutral as we provide our own insurance for our membership. It also means we do not have to impose membership on our clients.

I know for our Target Sports club in Ontario where membership is required (at this time), we cut cheques to the CSSA every month which pays a salary or two.

From what I understand (with today's announcements); if an ATT becomes a simple condition of a license, this imposed membership should come to an end as long as a club can get it's own insurance as we do in Alberta.

Complicated and simple all at teh same time.

JR

Thanks for the history lesson, JR.

Interesting all the intrigue in the industry, although by their public statements, I think I'm more aligned with the NFA.

Swampdonkey
07-25-2014, 01:02 PM
I'll still support both Associations, but the BCWF gets first priority. They know how to get things done.

Shalimar
07-30-2014, 11:04 PM
I'm sorry but that's just not accurate.

First off - harper has not promised to repeal all of the firearms act since the CPC was formed. The closest he's come is to say it needs to be re-written and should be done from a clean slate, and that was several elections ago and is no longer part of the CPC policy. If we want it back on policy, we need to attend policy conventions and get it made policy again, but that's a discussion for another time.

Secondly, if all firearms law was repealed as you suggest, it would cost him votes. Sorry - that's just the way it is, the public does NOT support having no firearms laws, and even cpc supporters would have a problem with it.

But - more importantly - even if it didn't cost HIM votes it would drive the OTHER parties voters out in droves.Voter turn out would LEAP up for the anti's, and chances are it wouldn't move an inch for the CPC. That means defeat .

Think i'm wrong? Look at Hudak. His '100,000 job cut' didn't cost HIM any supporters - he got as many or more votes as the last election. BUT - the liberal supporters turned out in much higher numbers as a result to 'stop' him. And now wynne has a landslide majority.

The current gov't did not promise to repeal the FA. Sorry it just didn't. And doing so would be political death. It isn't going to happen.

What CAN happen is that we re-write a section at a time and give it the death of a thousand cuts - eventually winding up with what we want and seeing improvements all the way along. Which (getting back to the original thread) is why it's SO critical that we have EFFECTIVE gun lobby orgs helping to organize the firearms community so that we're constantly asking for the next series of changes and getting them, till we've got what we want.



w/o wasting more time:

“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 of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad a law? It should
be repealed …”

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.”

~ Hon. Stephen Harper, January 2002



"The Conservative Party of Canada remains firmly committed to repealing
the current Firearms Act, including its firearms registration provisions,
and replacing it with a system of firearms control this is cost effective
and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly."

Hon. Stephen Harper
September 2004

Foxer
07-30-2014, 11:23 PM
]“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 of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad a law? It should
be repealed …”

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.”

~ Hon. Stephen Harper, January 2002

Wasn't even in the CPC party yet, was leader of the reform alliance.




"The Conservative Party of Canada remains firmly committed to repealing
the current Firearms Act, including its firearms registration provisions,
and replacing it with a system of firearms control this is cost effective
and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly."

Hon. Stephen Harper
September 2004


will replace the act.

So. As I said. Never promised to repeal the act as a member of the CPC - only said he'd replace it. And that was 10 years ago and half a dozen policy conventions.

Sometimes people hear what they want to hear.

awndray
07-30-2014, 11:59 PM
"...committed to repealing the current Firearms Act..."

awndray
07-31-2014, 12:04 AM
delete - double post

Foxer
07-31-2014, 12:28 AM
committed to repealing the current Firearms Act....
....and replacing it. See, that's what happens when you just snip the part you want to hear. You miss what was actually said.

People say and act like he said he'd repeal the law and that would be it. Like i said - he said he'd replace it. He didn't even say WHAT he'd replace it with other than it would be more fair and economical and wouldn't include the new registration provisions. And it is already. And they did kill the registration provisions.

AND - that was as i said umpteen policy conventions ago and we DID NOT choose to elect him prime minister when he made that pledge.

Its like walking into a store and demanding they honour the prices in a flyer that's 10 years old. It's ridiculous.

But somehow people just want to think about how he said he'd 'repeal' it while ignoring the rest entirely. Well that's not what he said.

We need to grow up and be honest. Harper never claimed we'd eliminate the gun laws. He said he'd replace 'em. And he said that a long time ago, we didn't elect him on that promise and policy has since changed. If we want to change the policy we need to show up, get new policy on the table and voted on at a convention, and then elect him on THAT policy.

Otherwise, we're just beating our chests and getting angry that the sun rises in the east instead of the west.

awndray
07-31-2014, 06:39 AM
I didn't miss. The point was that he did in fact say he would repeal it, yet you insist that he didn't. You keep keep looking for excuses. He said it. It's a fact.

Shalimar
07-31-2014, 09:36 AM
....and replacing it. (snip).

Once again you miss the point Foxer.. awndray
already pointed this out very succinctly so I won't bother elaborating

TPK
07-31-2014, 09:58 AM
I don't get what you guys are arguing about .. ya, he said "repeal" AND he said "replace", so what would we have been left with? something new, not everything gone.

Shalimar
07-31-2014, 10:30 AM
I don't get what you guys are arguing about .. ya, he said "repeal" AND he said "replace", so what would we have been left with? something new, not everything gone.

#1,, the act of repealing it has been promised and I as well as many others want that promise kept.

#2 as for replacing it.. do you not think that at this time given the input from all of us we could not have something that is far more intelligent and less abusive than what was intentionally crafted to harm US by Rock, Cukier etc etc..??

Simple fact is you cannot fix the "firearms" act as it stands.. it was written intentionally to be "broken" so as to persecute the law abiding and confiscate firearms from us. That was their entire goal... they have even been caught admitting that!

Therefore bandaid bullshit like the latest from Blaney is just that.. bullshit.

Time for them to shit or get off the pot. Anything less is only helping cukier and her ilk.

Foxer
07-31-2014, 05:20 PM
I didn't miss. The point was that he did in fact say he would repeal it, yet you insist that he didn't. You keep keep looking for excuses. He said it. It's a fact.

You did miss If you look at what i've written again and again i've specifically p[ointed out that he never said he'd repeal it without replacing it, vs what most people say which is 'he promised to repeal it'. period.

But apparently you want to get technical and twist the clear meaning of what i wrote. like now you're a lawyer. Fine.

In that case - he has repealed it. He never said he'd repeal the whole thing, he just said he'd repeal c-68 and in fact if you read c-68 it is very different than the laws we have now, with several sections repealed. Further, it doesn't actually promise to do it all at once. So even if you took the stance that he promised to repeal the whole thing and replace every single word, as long as the cpc does it sometime over the next century or two they've still done it.

So. There you go. Happy? Can we get back to an honest discussion now?

Here's the bottom line - he never said he would get rid of gun laws. Choose the word you like - scrap, repeal, end, trash, whatever. What he said is that he would replace them with something else. And he has done that and is continuing to do that. But people here frequently just state that he promised to get rid of c-68 and end gun laws.

Even better - most people don't realize what c-68 is. They think it gave us the current firearms laws - it didn't, the vast majority of them existed before it.

SO what was in c-68? Well - it added penalties for using guns for crimes like kidnap and such. Presumably we're ok with that.

It added the long gun registry. Restricteds were already registered. That's gone now.

It added the PAL instead of the pol and fac. That actually worked to our favour in some ways - in the past about 1/3 of gun owners could buy guns, suddenly they alll could and gun sales actually went up. what hurt was the 5 year renewal. But they're now working on doing something about that too to make sure we're not criminals.

and it gave more power to the CFO's. Which we're in the process of changing and taking away.

So - of the things that c-68 actually gave us (excluding the stuff we don't care about like kidnap laws :)) about 3/4 are gone or going. And the last quarter may actually be addressed in this new legislation, we'll see. Most of the stuff people don't like is actually from OTHER acts. C-68 didn't give us prohibs and restricteds, all of the swiss arms stuff we are dealing with from previous law. So even if we did get rid of c-68 you'd find most of the laws we don't like would still be there, it would just be back in the criminal code.

But people say things like "the swiss arms thing wouldn't have happened if harper kept his word and repealed c-68". Well, yes it would have. And harper never said he'd get rid of the law, he said he'd replace it so we would have had something anyway, it's not like all those laws would be gone.

It's a matter of being honest about what he said he'd do and what he's done, and where we are now. Repealing c-68 would still leave us with c-17 and all the crap before it. And harper always intended to have something to replace it. And he's already replaced much and is replacing more.

So we need to stop whining about him 'keeping his promise to repeal c-68' and focus on what they're really committed to do and what can be done today.

Foxer
07-31-2014, 05:24 PM
#2 as for replacing it.. do you not think that at this time given the input from all of us we could not have something that is far more intelligent and less abusive than what was intentionally crafted to harm US by Rock, Cukier etc etc..??


Well there's the problem isn't it. Instead of asking for something specific as a group, "all of us" asked for "something". And when you do that you get nothing.


Simple fact is you cannot fix the "firearms" act as it stands.. it was written intentionally to be "broken" so as to persecute the law abiding and confiscate firearms from us. That was their entire goal... they have even been caught admitting that!

Of course you can. Thats actually what repeal and replace means. You cut out the sections you don't need, rewrite the sections that need it, and voila - something new. Acts are amended all the time.

The challenge is that the problems we have aren't just with the firearms act. And you can't just 'delete' the firearms act, it affects too many other acts. Really the only thing you can do is cut and replace.


Therefore bandaid bullshit like the latest from Blaney is just that.. bullshit.

Fine - when the rest of us aren't using att's any more and the CFO's have less power over us, you be sure to demand that YOU still have to put up with that stuff because it's such a small change you don't care.

Shalimar
07-31-2014, 07:22 PM
SNIP.



" sometime over the next century or two they've still done it. "


Sorry but what are you smoking that you think in a heartbeat that would be acceptable to anyone other than cukier??? /facepalm

awndray
07-31-2014, 07:29 PM
Foxer, please don't try to tell me what I did or did not miss. I'm quite capable of basic reading and comprehension. I respectfully request that you step down from that soap box. Get off your high horse, man. I didn't miss squat. You know that very well. I said nothing with regards to replacing the FA because that wasn't the argument. You insisted that he never said he would repeal, yet he did. That and only that was the argument from the beginning but you persisted with your replacement argument.

I'm done with this conversation.

Shalimar
07-31-2014, 07:29 PM
Well there's the problem isn't it. Instead of asking for something specific as a group, "all of us" asked for "something". And when you do that you get nothing.



Of course you can. Thats actually what repeal and replace means. You cut out the sections you don't need, rewrite the sections that need it, and voila - something new. Acts are amended all the time.

The challenge is that the problems we have aren't just with the firearms act. And you can't just 'delete' the firearms act, it affects too many other acts. Really the only thing you can do is cut and replace.



Fine - when the rest of us aren't using att's any more and the CFO's have less power over us, you be sure to demand that YOU still have to put up with that stuff because it's such a small change you don't care.


In order..

#1 no that is not a real problem.. at least in comparison to the BS that is in effect now

#2 If you seriously think you can fix that which was intentionally crafted so as to persecute us effectively then you seriously need to seek professional therapy.... the sheer lack of common sense and logic involved by your statement is beyond words

It's the equivalent of "hey.. lets give my car a fancy new paint job.. while the engine, transmission, brakes, windshield, tires, lights etc etc ad nauseum are all intentionally broken.

Anyone with any common sense would say "scrap it and get a new one"

Sorry foxer.. but time once again for you to do a reality check.

You cannot fix the intentional mess that was forced in.. you can kill it and then start anew... far more effectively and that way also not leaving anything behind to be abused by cukier and her ilk.



#3 as expected.. you are oblivious

Why do you think anything has happened at all? It sure as hell wasn't due to the masses that are too apathetic to get off their asses and fight back

Time once again you did a reality check as should many many others (sadly)

Reality is there are a very few of us that took the fight to them..

Didn't see you there though..

Foxer
07-31-2014, 07:42 PM
Foxer, please don't try to tell me what I did or did not miss. I'm quite capable of basic reading and comprehension. I respectfully request that you step down from that soap box. Get off your high horse, man. I didn't miss squat. You know that very well. I said nothing with regards to replacing the FA because that wasn't the argument. You insisted that he never said he would repeal, yet he did. That and only that was the argument from the beginning but you persisted with your replacement argument.


Dude you missed it. Don't get pissy with me because you're sore about it now.

Foxer
07-31-2014, 07:55 PM
#1 no that is not a real problem.. at least in comparison to the BS that is in effect now


We have the bs now because it IS a real problem. Which is the point. Sorry buck, if you insist on repeating the mistakes of the past, you really can't complain when things dont turn out the way you like.


#2 If you seriously think you can fix that which was intentionally crafted so as to persecute us effectively then you seriously need to seek professional therapy.... the sheer lack of common sense and logic involved by your statement is beyond words

It's not hard. You just need a moderate amount of intelligence coupled with a basic working understanding of law to see how to fix it. I realize that means I may have to walk you through it, but if you like i'm happy to do so. Lets begin - pick one thing that the act enables that you think we couldn't fix by changing the act, and I'll show you how it's done.


It's the equivalent of "hey.. lets give my car a fancy new paint job.. while the engine, transmission, brakes, windshield, tires, lights etc etc ad nauseum are all intentionally broken.

No it isn't. It's just words on paper bud - you can change it to be whatever you want. But - by all means, as I said above tell me one thing that the act enables that couldn't be changed by changing the act. Lets just start with one. I'm making it easy for you.





#3 as expected.. you are oblivious

Wow. You really have me wriggling in the grip of your unassailable logical argument there big guy :)


Why do you think anything has happened at all? It sure as hell wasn't due to the masses that are too apathetic to get off their asses and fight back


Of course it was. The 'masses' as you put it spoke in a very clear voice that they wanted specific things dealt with. As they did so, those things tended to get dealt with. Whether it was the UN marking scheme, or the UN arms treaty, or the Long gun registry, etc etc - large groups of people speaking in a clear voice with clear direction tends to get gov'ts attention. Whereas running around beating your chest and screaming tends to get you laughed at.

And look now! - the masses again have spoken strongly and clearly saying 'this specific thing is unacceptable' and the gov't is once again taking action.

Amazing isn't it.

Time once again you did a reality check as should many many others (sadly)
Yeah... here's a tip. When you find yourself saying "it's not me that's crazy it's everyone else", it's probably you.

Reality is there are a very few of us that took the fight to them..

Didn't see you there though..

Well you DO seem to walk around with blinders on. That might be the problem.

Shalimar
07-31-2014, 07:59 PM
We have the bs now because it IS a real problem. Which is the point. Sorry buck, if you insist on repeating the mistakes of the past, you really can't complain when things dont turn out the way you like.

(snip)

So instead of kissing someone's ass for crumbs.. get off your ass and use your brains (which we know you have) and get into the real fight instead,...


At least I and a few others have the balls to do it.. (to be blunt)..

Can you honestly say the same?

Foxer
07-31-2014, 08:17 PM
So instead of kissing someone's ass for crumbs.. get off your ass and use your brains (which we know you have) and get into the real fight instead,...

bud, this is the real fight. The 'jumping up and down and rending our garments' is the fake one.



At least I and a few others have the balls to do it.. (to be blunt)..

Can you honestly say the same?

LOL - it doesn't take balls bud - it takes brains and a willingness to do honest work. What you're doing is acting like you have balls. What I've done is honest work and I can say with absolute certainty it's made a difference. And I also know with certainty that it's thru the efforts of a LOT of people out there doing the real work that we're actually getting things done.

Whereas what have you achieved? There's no interest at all in scrapping the firearms act in it's entirety in either the gov't or the average person on the street, so you've utterly failed. There IS support for what's happend, there's support for what's about to happen, and guess what? There's likely to be support for the next thing that we do.

What you propose doesn't work. We can see that. It's been tried, it's achieved nothing.

What I do does work. We can see that. We've actually gotten things done, we're doing things right now, we're well positioned to do more moving forward.

But hey - if you think they're 'crumbs' then by all means - pay the 200 bucks to have each of your guns laser engraved as per the un marking deal, register your guns with the gov't, make sure you ask for permission to go to and from the range etc, etc etc.

In the meantime we'll carry on and get real work done, and by the time you get sick and tired of gnashing your teeth and rending your garments we'll pretty much have things where we want them.

HenryLung
07-31-2014, 11:46 PM
After reading the NFA's letter to Blaney basically yelling at him concerning the upcoming "announcement", I think I'm pretty much done with national gun associations. We have two of note. NFA and CSSA. All they do is spend their time trying to upstage one another. The NFA is constantly speaking out of turn and has knee jerk reaction after knee jerk reaction. This does nothing to garner any form of respect. Even members of the two groups are constantly jumping from one side of the fence to the other. This complete lack of cohesiveness is exactly why as a group, gun owners will fail in their bid to not be chastised by the government and public and lose more rights. Why can we not have one national organization to represent all gun owners of all disciplines? The NFA and CSSA executives are behaving exactly like the politicians they are trying to reason with. They behave with childishness and pettiness. It has become a power struggle just like we see in government. Yup. Done.

Having run my own gun organization, I know how quickly egos can get involved. However, regardless of the infighting that is happening within the respective lobby groups, we are winning this fight. We can't be jagged when we see pettiness, we have to be professional and support all positive approaches to changing firearms legislation in Canada for the better. That being said, no amount of political lobbying will surplant taking someone undecided, or a new shooter to your local shooting range for a positive experience.

It's your right to be disillusioned with infighting, which I'm sure no one is happy with. But we cannot as Canadian Gun Owners and enthusiasts lose sight of the goal. Call me an optimistic young fool, but I think we are winning.

Foxer
08-01-2014, 12:17 AM
That being said, no amount of political lobbying will surplant taking someone undecided, or a new shooter to your local shooting range for a positive experience.

Truth. Or at least - the one leads to the other. More people with good attitudes towards guns means it's that much easier for us politically.


Call me an optimistic young fool, but I think we are winning.

Of course we are. And if we fine tune our skills in the areas we KNOW work, we'll start winning even faster.

The LGR was the first time we EVER rolled back a major law. If we get the att thing right and actually seriously curtail the powers of the CFO's and deal with the classification issues, we will have rolled back MOST of c-68. At that rate, if we can get the CPC in again we'll stand a great chance of putting a serious dent into c-17 too :)

We can start to pick up a few of our 'lost rights' like handgun hunting and carrying for wilderness protection, etc. And when lo and behold there is no blood in the streets, if we continue to educate the public then who knows what we might achieve.

And as you say - if we spend that time also getting people into the sport, educating the public on the facts, and opening discussions about things like defensive carry and the like, we will have a solid base that will help keep us safe from liberal attacks if they get back in.

We have momentum - and if we're smart we'll keep it and things will continue to improve.

Shalimar
08-01-2014, 08:43 AM
bud, this is the real fight. (snip).

Sorry Foxer... but you have very much yet to learn about the real fight and the back room begging for crumbs method will never work in the end.

Foxer
08-01-2014, 08:58 AM
Sorry Foxer... but you have very much yet to learn about the real fight and the back room begging for crumbs method will never work in the end.

Shalimar, history has already taught us all we need to know. Not just in our fight, but many others like it. Your ideas don't work, and never have. Not for us, not for anyone. It's been tried - you're trying to suggest that because it failed we need more of it. That defies logic and common sense. The stratagies that i've proposed are demonstrably successful, and not just for us. This kind of war is only won a battle at a time.

And few gun owners think of what we've achieved as 'crumbs'. Do you want to go back to registering your long guns? You don't think THAT was kind of a big deal? It was the number one tool the anti's had for confiscation. It was huge. You really want to have all your guns laser engraved at a cost of about 200 bucks per gun? You think that's not a big deal, raising the price of every gun by a couple hundred dollars? The CFO's are using att's to make it very hard to use restricted guns - you think stopping that is 'no big deal'?

How about putting an end to the reclassifications? I think a lot of swiss arms and cz owners would say that IS kind of important. It's a big deal.

You throw the word 'crumbs' out because you think it's an emotionally charged term. But it's not real - these are SUBSTANTIAL changes that help correct SERIOUS problems.

No group in history ever got all they wanted in one fell swoop. It's always been bit-by-bit. That's true of women's rights, gay rights, first nations, blacks, etc etc.

And we're lucky - it took the gays and first nations for example about 50 years to go from basically 'illegal' to 'very strong rights' from their first victories to now, we will likely get pretty close to what we want in more like 15-20 (depending how many terms the libs are in).

This is how you fight and win. Anything else is like peeing yourself in black pants - it gives you a warm feeling but nobody really notices and in the end it stinks.

TPK
08-01-2014, 10:11 AM
Wow .. if some you guys put as much effort into sending letters to your MLA's as you do to posting here (and maybe you do .. I hope you do ..).. we would see a lot more change. The time we spend here fighting each other is time that is NOT spent fighting the real problem.... and you don't get that time back .. it's wasted and gone.

HenryLung
08-01-2014, 10:13 AM
Wow .. if some you guys put as much effort into sending letters to your MLA's as you do to posting here (and maybe you do .. I hope you do ..).. we would see a lot more change. The time we spend here fighting each other is time that is NOT spent fighting the real problem.... and you don't get that time back .. it's wasted and gone.

Hear hear, don't lose sight guys.

Shalimar
08-01-2014, 10:48 AM
Shalimar,(snip).


As usual Foxer you still just don't listen . So stop wasting our time with this.

Shalimar
08-01-2014, 10:49 AM
Wow .. if some you guys put as much effort into sending letters to your MLA's as you do to posting here (and maybe you do .. I hope you do ..).. we would see a lot more change. The time we spend here fighting each other is time that is NOT spent fighting the real problem.... and you don't get that time back .. it's wasted and gone.

Actually I spend more hours doing that and preparing for court and the next stage of the fight with the CFO that you would ever imagine and Cyclone does if anything even more in some aspects.
However I agree with your point as well ;)

Foxer
08-01-2014, 11:28 AM
As usual Foxer you still just don't listen . So stop wasting our time with this.

LOL - ahhh the old "i don't like what you're saying but I can't refute it so shut up!" routine :)

I listen just fine. The difference is I listen to reason rather than just listening to whatever emotion i'm feeling at the moment.

Please - if you disagree then point out where i'm wrong. Which group in history won their battles for their rights in a single go? Where did that happen overnight?

And wasn't it you who said that the FA couldn't be modified to our wishes? Weren't you going to point out what law was enabled by the act which couldn't be changed with a modification to the act? Why don't you post that here, we'll hash that out.

Putting your fingers in your ears and asking people to shut up when they tell you truths you don't like won't change anything.

Here's a thought - why don't you get behind what we're doing now? You can STILL rail and rant about how we should be demanding whatever it is you think we should be demanding, but it won't hurt that to support the current efforts and win some victories right now while you wait for the CPC to cave under the pressure of your righteous anger.

That way - if by some chance you're right, you've lost nothing and if by some chance you're wrong you'll at least have gained some victories.

Shalimar
08-01-2014, 12:07 PM
LOL - ahhh the old "i don't like what you're saying but I can't refute it so shut up!" routine :)
(snip)
.

No.. it's simply a matter of I won't waste my time on such. I'm actually working on the real fight instead...

Foxer
08-01-2014, 02:26 PM
No.. it's simply a matter of I won't waste my time on such. I'm actually working on the real fight instead...

Sure it is :) Thanks for stopping by :)

Candychikita
08-01-2014, 02:43 PM
Guys, this is really hard to read :( The thread is called "Too Much Infighting" and for a few pages now it's like being back at CGN...full of infighting. Can you tone it down please? The mods here do slowly read through all this stuff you know :( :( MYYY EYYYYYYYYEEEESSSSSS

Shalimar
08-01-2014, 03:21 PM
Guys, this is really hard to read :( The thread is called "Too Much Infighting" and for a few pages now it's like being back at CGN...full of infighting. Can you tone it down please? The mods here do slowly read through all this stuff you know :( :( MYYY EYYYYYYYYEEEESSSSSS

:Beer time::Beer time::Beer time:

Doug_M
10-07-2014, 05:38 AM
Man the NFA and CSSA frustrate me! I didn't renew my CSSA membership when it lapsed in June because I don't like how they operate. To me they just want your money so they can operate in secrecy. Sure there is the annual general meeting, but I can't afford to travel to Ontario for that. Plus they seem to be adversarial towards the NFA.

But the NFA has taken a more "I want it all now your I will spoil my vote" whiny unproductive tact. I understand that the government needs a carrot on a stick to motivate it and that we shouldn't promise them everything when they promise us a this or that but haven't delivered yet. But they are spiralling down to the bottom to me. Right now on their FB page they are advocating turfing the CPC just to teach them a lesson. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! They also are resorting to lying about the CPC's record. First they are propagating lies that the PSM okayed the orders to prohibit the CZ and SA when those were in fact done as a matter of course due to "variant" and "converted auto". Second they are spreading the lie that more firearms have been prohibited under the CPC's watch than any other government when the truth is nearly 200,000 prohibited by the Libs and 11 to 13,000 under the CPC.

Anyway, I still believe it is important to belong to one or the other (or both) of these orgs simply to show the government of the day that we firearms owners are organized and active. But like the title says, man am I frustrated with them! Grrr :mad1:

SIR VEYOR
10-07-2014, 06:06 AM
And the next tier of provincial organizations are even worse.

They routinely take up the most narrowly defining roles they can and because the use the province's name in their title, it's taken as they represent shooters in the whole province or even most of Canada. Doesn't the Ontario organization sit on a few boards and they threw many people under the bus back at the start of the LGR.

Clubs and most shooting groups are too scared of their own shadows to do anything. And I don't think the clubs should be doing anything politically anyways. But I thought they had an organization\association as well. That group should be able to a little talking and at least help offset the provincial sportsmens groupss.

It's all just herding cats and the two biggest brothers are too busy positioning against the other to really focus on being effective. One's being obnoxious, one's being too timid. Extremes are fine, but we need to drive the point of the spear forward, not just edges.

Doug_M
10-07-2014, 06:14 AM
It's all just herding cats and the two biggest brothers are too busy positioning against the other to really focus on being effective. One's being obnoxious, one's being too timid. Extremes are fine, but we need to drive the point of the spear forward, not just edges.

Quoted for truth!

As for provincial orgs, the one here in NS is very expensive and not politically active that I'm aware of. But yes, I'd heard OFAH threw people under the bus back in the 90s. I've also heard they've changed their tune. Someone on here was commenting on that several weeks back. Imagine what we could accomplish if just 10% of gun owners were actively engaged and in an org that was focused on driving "the point of the spear forward"!

jwirecom109
10-07-2014, 07:13 AM
I find building relationships with your local MPs and MLAs more fruit-full the some of the backdoor politics and smash grab politics that is going on.

Foxer
10-07-2014, 07:56 AM
Yeah it's a shame. Our orgs are basically garbage at this point, Sir Veyor is correct: One's being obnoxious, one's being too timid. The NFA is all about recruitment right now and zero about actually fighting for gun owners rights, so they do the chest pounding thing and try to pretend they're charleton heston. Gets people wound up and buying memberships and such. In the short term. Longer term it's a VERY short sighted move. And the CSSA has some sort of Stockholm syndrome thing going on half the time. They seem to be getting a little better but they don't really understand how to lobby a gov't effectively.

It's not AS critical right now, but one day an anti gov't WILL get in, and that's when we'll really really wish we had a strong org that could apply political pressure effectively and professionally.

It's not rocket science how to do this right. It's not like it's some major mystery - this kind of thing has been done successfully by a lot of orgs in more than one country and I can spell out the basics in a single paragraph or two. But it's a lack of focus combined with people who rise to the top of these orgs not because of their training or skill but because of their beliefs and politicking. It's great to have someone passionate at the top, but it's even better to have someone very skilled instead.

For now, jwirecom109 is correct, direct connection with the mp's and provincal mla's/mpp's combined with grassroots campaigns is our best bet. Which is a shame - we're squandering some truly golden opportunities here.

nntw
10-07-2014, 08:31 AM
Sigh... there generally seem to be more sensible discussions here than... on that 'other' site...


I tend to feel the NFA isn't doing anything positive for gun owners- think the only thing a Charlton Hestonesque stance will do is provide a rallying point for those who feel gun owners are lunatics.

I'm HOPING that the CSSA really has been working behind the scenes with the CPC to promote some positive changes. And the CPC does tend to be quite secretive in general, doesn't it?

So, hopefully today's unveiling of the Common Sense Firearms Act will be seen as a good thing for gun owners... and yet not SO good that it attracts unfavourable attention from those who only want further restrictions imposed.

Hmrdwn
10-07-2014, 08:47 AM
So, hopefully today's unveiling of the Common Sense Firearms Act will be seen as a good thing for gun owners... and yet not SO good that it attracts unfavourable attention from those who only want to ban all firearms.

Fixed it for you.

Foxer
10-07-2014, 08:47 AM
I'm HOPING that the CSSA really has been working behind the scenes with the CPC to promote some positive changes. And the CPC does tend to be quite secretive in general, doesn't it?

I'm quite certain they have, but the question becomes how effective have they been. Their methods simply don't produce good results reliably, and some of their 'negotiated' agreements in the past have been pretty garbage-y.

Here's a very basic example of how to work with gov'ts. GOv't agrees to sit down with you to talk. You go to your people (and in fact to ALL gun owners everywhere) and say "guys - we're going to go discuss this specific issue. We won't get a chance to discuss anything else right now, but we're going to deal with this. Here's what we're going to ask for - 100,000 letters arriving at the desks of mp's and cabinet members saying YOU think what we're asking for is a great idea would really help. "

Then you sit down, and you say "You know, gov't, what gun owners would REALLY like to see is "this". If you gave them that, you'd get a lot of support I think".

The gov't says "Well... YOU say that they'll like it but it's a lot of work and we're not sure it's worth it because.. WOAH!!!! .. I just got 100,000 letters saying people love the idea! Well... looks like you're right, we can make some serious fundraising headway out of this and win a lot of votes. This idea has a lot of support!!! - ok, lets go thru it again".

Which is basically exactly what happened with the swiss arms thing. We freaked - wrote letters en masse, and the gov't realized that there was both a threat AND an opportunity here. And lo and behold - there was movement.


Instead - what they do is keep secret that they're actually talking to anybody, what they're talking about, what they're asking for. It's proper to not discuss the negotiations, or sometimes who you're talking to, but there's NOTHING wrong with saying you're talking to 'the gov't' about xxx. So they go there, sit down, say they represent a few thousand gun owners who all agree with this idea, trust me. The gov't will listen.. but not that hard.

The NFA just goes "GIVE ME EVERYTHING OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!". And the phone goes 'click'. So then they advocate putting in the liberals for a term to 'teach the cpc a lesson' - but we all know it's gun owners who'll be the ones getting schooled.

We are, at times, our own worst enemies.

Gunexpert007
10-07-2014, 09:14 AM
I find building relationships with your local MPs and MLAs more fruit-full the some of the backdoor politics and smash grab politics that is going on.

A very good idea.....If you want real change , getting involved politically with a party of your choice is the best idea . People would be surprised how few people are involved in their local riding associations.......a handful of pro-firearm folks involved in their local riding associations can make a " BIG " difference.......

awndray
10-07-2014, 09:33 AM
I'll just put this here.

http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?15279-Too-Much-Infighting


Related:
http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?12909-WE-ALL-MUST-JOIN-THE-NATIONAL-FIREARMS-ASSOCIATION
http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?12607-We-need-to-UNITE!
http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?12604-Social-media-firearms-campaign-resources-to-educate-the-middle-ground-RAMP-IT-UP

blacksmithden
10-07-2014, 09:47 AM
I'd like to see every member of both organizations withhold all donations and membership fees and demand that they agree to merge into one entity and work together. Unfortunately, I think the result of said forced merger would be equivalent to putting 2 trains on the same track and heading them toward each other at 300 mph...all while hoping somehow there won't be a crash.

SIR VEYOR
10-07-2014, 09:51 AM
Here's a thought.
How about DougM's oneclear voice hiring a professional lobby group funded by gun owners donations? Let those that are professionals do the heavy lifting, we just pay (possibly through the nose), but at least they should deliver better results than the the two organizations who aren't really professional lobbyists. The orgs contribute to Oneclear as well, and help work with the prioritizing the list and informing the grassroots for 2-15 different ways. I know a lobby group in DC that has been looking at the Oil and Gas lobbying and possibly doing some of that in Canada as well. These guys do seem to be pretty effective and some of their people are very respected by both sides of the aisle there.

The Canadian lobby group just doesn't seem that effective for anybody. But then again, how many are professionals? Even Wendy is "self-taught" isn't she?

Foxer
10-07-2014, 10:28 AM
Here's a thought.
How about DougM's oneclear voice hiring a professional lobby group funded by gun owners donations? Let those that are professionals do the heavy lifting, we just pay (possibly through the nose), but at least they should deliver better results than the the two organizations who aren't really professional lobbyists. The orgs contribute to Oneclear as well, and help work with the prioritizing the list and informing the grassroots for 2-15 different ways. I know a lobby group in DC that has been looking at the Oil and Gas lobbying and possibly doing some of that in Canada as well. These guys do seem to be pretty effective and some of their people are very respected by both sides of the aisle there.

The Canadian lobby group just doesn't seem that effective for anybody. But then again, how many are professionals? Even Wendy is "self-taught" isn't she?

Ive heard worse ideas. it'd need a lot of work, but sure. Done properly it could have a signfiicant impact.

killer kane
10-07-2014, 06:11 PM
Ive heard worse ideas. it'd need a lot of work, but sure. Done properly it could have a signfiicant impact.

Sounds good. But in the mean time, the CPC gets another $25 cheque. A return dangling carrot as it were.

Foxer
10-07-2014, 06:38 PM
Sounds good. But in the mean time, the CPC gets another $25 cheque. A return dangling carrot as it were.

That is the way to do it. You don't give the dog the whole box of biscuts, you give 'em one at a time when he does something good. :) Keeps them on track and also lets them know what we consider to be appropriate behavior. I'll have to fire 'em off another 25 bucks as well.

blacksmithden
10-07-2014, 09:40 PM
HEY !!! I just had a GREAT idea. We set up a Sheldon vs Tony, no holds barred, caged death match ! We use the proceeds from ticket sales to fund some professional lobbyists !!! Good ? Yes ???? :D BAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

Foxer
10-07-2014, 09:43 PM
HEY !!! I just had a GREAT idea. We set up a Sheldon vs Tony, no holds barred, caged death match ! We use the proceeds from ticket sales to fund some professional lobbyists !!! Good ? Yes ???? :D BAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

What have we told you about the voices? :)

although admittedly I'd pay to watch that :)

blacksmithden
10-07-2014, 10:25 PM
What have we told you about the voices? :)

although admittedly I'd pay to watch that :)

I know ! TOTALLY crazy isn't it ?!!? The mere idea is so ludicrous that it baffles the mind...but you KNOW people would still pay good money to see it ! It's a sick world we live in my man...might as well exploit it for cash. ROFL !

Haywire1
10-07-2014, 10:52 PM
A match that awesome demands a midget referee.
Oh FH.........

Grizz
10-08-2014, 12:10 AM
I'd like to see every member of both organizations withhold all donations and membership fees.

I think this actually is the answer....they are supposed to be OUR voice, why can't we tell them EXACTLY what WE want and let them know, like the CPC, if they don't deliver we will be done with them!! No more membership, no more money.

An org specific section could be created allowing direct communications with each of their leaders. We discuss or vote on what the masses want creating their agenda. If they ignore their members, we ignore them am move on. They say they are our voice, let's hold them to it and make sure they are communicating what we want.

In then end, if that's one org, we all decide on which one and stop donating to the other...they won't last long. If we want them to work together, we tell them we will stop donating to both if they don't. Outside of letting them know we are done with this crap, we can't be any worse off than we are now. I'm done with people professing to be my voice when they want my money just to throw me under the bus and completely misrepresent me and push their agenda when the time comes!!! There was a time I belonged to both....today's a completely different story until one of them gets their stuff together!!



Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

mouthpiece
10-08-2014, 04:42 AM
Check who is on the Federal Firearms Advisory Committee. Those are the people who the government is listening to and who are effecting change.

CSSA

OFAH

And others from industry

Doug_M
10-08-2014, 05:14 AM
Grizz, that is partly what I had in mind with One Clear Voice. Once we've collectively gone through the process of coming up with ideas and prioritizing, we'd not only tell the gov but our orgs. I didn't do it this time round because each orgs stance on the CSFL Act is quite clear and entrenched. But once the act passes and the next round begins there will be functionality to tell the orgs what we want them to do.

Foxer
10-08-2014, 05:31 AM
It's a sick world we live in my man...might as well exploit it for cash. ROFL !

We could probably sell that as a bumper sticker

Doug_M
10-08-2014, 05:54 AM
Just saw this posted on the NFA's FB page (by some dude, not the NFA themselves). Rod's got my vote! I think he is the man to steer the NFA back on course.

http://abbotsfordfishandgameclub.org/afgc-vice-president-running-for-nfa-director/


The 2014 fall nominations for directors of Canada’s National Firearms Association have been announced and our very own Vice President, Rod Giltaca, has thrown his hat into the ring.

rod-photoRod Giltaca is an entrepreneur, a firearms instructor, host of the Civil Advantage YouTube Channel and Vice President of the Abbotsford Fish & Game Club. Rod is a tireless supporter of basic human rights notably the rights of self-defense and civilian firearm ownership. As an entrepreneur, Rod has successfully worked in business development with multinational corporations and government organizations. He knows how to achieve results with limited resources and has a solid reputation as a focused, articulate and respectful leader.

Changing the public’s perception of gun owners is key to not only minimizing the opposition, but in establishing an honest dialog about the prejudicial and ineffective laws currently in place. Rod’s skill as a communicator and his involvement in the industry is a perfect fit with this ongoing strategy.

The firearms community has suffered enough, sacrificed enough. It takes strategy, education and politics to take us to the next level. Rod has the experience to help the NFA get there.

Please note that each active member of the NFA from the indicated region will receive a ballot by mail. Only the mailed in ballot will be accepted to count. The ballot should be returned to the NFA Head Office no later than December 1, 2014.

Foxer
10-08-2014, 06:31 AM
I think Rod would be awesome but unless he takes president I'm not sure he'll change much.

kennymo
10-08-2014, 10:32 AM
I think Rod would be awesome but unless he takes president I'm not sure he'll change much.

Saw Sheldon's whining and hoping the new bill dies on the table last night....(via Facebook) Kinda premature IMO, not real happy that they seem to have already taken the position that this will be the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners. There seems to be a fair amount of good from what I've read of it so far. Not everything we want in the long run granted, but lose the gloom and doom attitude already. It's not going to help get a seat at the table the next go round...

Doug_M
10-08-2014, 10:42 AM
Saw Sheldon's whining and hoping the new bill dies on the table last night....(via Facebook) Kinda premature IMO, not real happy that they seem to have already taken the position that this will be the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners. There seems to be a fair amount of good from what I've read of it so far. Not everything we want in the long run granted, but lose the gloom and doom attitude already. It's not going to help get a seat at the table the next go round...

Exactly. The NFA have made themselves irrelevant unfortunately. Hopefully Rod is elected and can help turn that around. I've always enjoyed his "political" videos and his approach to those topics. As for the bill, it seems the NFA and indeed most people, have missed the meat of it which is defining non-restricted and created a mechanism to move guns from prohib and restricted to non-restricted. Its like they have blinders on because possession wasn't decriminalized, mag caps weren't eliminated, they can't hunt with AR's and handguns, etc. etc. Yet they fail to see the potential this little change has.

Foxer
10-08-2014, 11:01 AM
Exactly. The NFA have made themselves irrelevant unfortunately. Hopefully Rod is elected and can help turn that around. I've always enjoyed his "political" videos and his approach to those topics. As for the bill, it seems the NFA and indeed most people, have missed the meat of it which is defining non-restricted and created a mechanism to move guns from prohib and restricted to non-restricted. Its like they have blinders on because possession wasn't decriminalized, mag caps weren't eliminated, they can't hunt with AR's and handguns, etc. etc. Yet they fail to see the potential this little change has.

What's really upsetting is that by hoping this dies, they're hoping the cz's and swiss's remain prohib'd. There's a lot of gun owners who're affected by that and for a supposed 'gun org' to work AGAINST their interests is clearly not what we want.

Doug_M
10-08-2014, 11:21 AM
What's really upsetting is that by hoping this dies, they're hoping the cz's and swiss's remain prohib'd. There's a lot of gun owners who're affected by that and for a supposed 'gun org' to work AGAINST their interests is clearly not what we want.

Well as we've both seen in other threads (and elsewhere) it is impossible to convince some people of the power this bill gives the gov to "right wrongs". The NFA has had such blinders on lately with its railing against the CPC that they can't see it either. This is why we need Rod!

speedloader
10-08-2014, 11:51 AM
I agree Doug I think Rods approach would be more about the proper information getting across to everyone
which is what we need as he is very good at explaining things in a manner that everyone can understand
regardless if you are an owner or not

Shalimar
10-08-2014, 02:46 PM
I look at it this way.. the CSSA tried all sorts of BS w/me.. trying to show they are the "boys club" to which I told them to kiss my ass.

The NFA is hard line no compromise.. I can agree w/that.

Odds of them getting along overall are slim to none (hell the CFI was created due to internal stupidity at the CSSA).

Not to mention a ton of other crap

While the NFA is not perfect.. they at least refuse to bend over and take it unlike others.. So I continue to put my support behind them (not to mention they are the biggest org and Sheldon, Bill and others including myself work for them for free)

Foxer
10-08-2014, 05:40 PM
While the NFA is not perfect.. they at least refuse to bend over and take it unlike others.

While i agree that the CSSA is too soft, the problem is that the nfa may be all 'no compromise' but they're also getting absolutely nothing done, and now the gov't wont' even talk to them. You could pay YOURSELF to 'not compromise' and get nothing done and achieve just as much.

Are we here to fight alligators or drain the swamp? Grass roots gun owner drives like the cz/swiss event are getting more stuff done than the orgs are these days and that's free. The nfa is focused more on membership these days by chest thumping without producing but they're slicing their throats long term, the gov't won't take them seriously again and for everyone they're getting to sign up there's another gun owner who thinks they're nuts. And the CSSA isn't doing much better - and their people are paid to be working on this stuff full time.

It's not pretty. We're going to regret that when the day comes that the opposition really does win an election.

Strewth
10-08-2014, 08:26 PM
I don't see these orgs coming back together; best I hope for is a more moderate NFA and a more open CSSA. The first would happen under new leadership, the second...I dunno. The CSSA has affected change by doing things their way...I think? Never quite sure as they don't seem to tell the membership much.
It's quite funny (sad, not ha-ha) to see such polar opposites as representation in Canada of all places; a middle ground between the two would be more stereotypically Canadian.
It's not pretty. We're going to regret that when the day comes that the opposition really does win an election.
I heavy-heartedly agree with this. The NFA looking to get people to spoil their vote is beyond ridiculous. This isn't a high school student election.

Foxer
10-08-2014, 08:48 PM
The CSSA has affected change by doing things their way...I think? Never quite sure as they don't seem to tell the membership much.

The CSSA has done good work with public relations. They do a decent job on tv and have managed to get on tv a fair bit when there is a contentious issue going on (like the swiss issue). To that degree they've done their job, but you know - that doesn't happen that often and they spend a lot of time and money absolutely achieving nothing in their dealings with the gov't. At least the nfa has the excuse that it's all volunteer and they only have so much time - these guys are supposed to be organizing gun owners and their fight against bad law full time as their main job... when was the last time you heard them a) be successful in changing the laws or b) effectively organizing or uniting gun owners in a common campaign for change? Like... never?? They 'negotiate' behind closed doors, come up with horrible deals that everyone hates and shoots down, and then try to take credit when something positive happens that they had very little if anything to do with. I'd actually be happier with them if they spent all their time on PR stuff that really helped promote positive firearms thinking across canada. They aren't horrible at that.

The NFA actually used to be better at dealing with the gov't, and they were very proficient with legal issues, helping a LOT of canadians who'd run afoul of the law inappropriately and getting involved in legal challenges. But - they don't really seem to do that much anymore and instead of really growing stronger and building on the works of Dave tomlinson, they've kind of just fallen apart and are now the equivalent of pita without any of the success.

They've never been great at the PR stuff - dave, bless his soul, was a great guy and a hell of a knowledgeable man and quite clever - but in interviews he just didn't have that 'magic' like we see with solomon for example. In fact - if you asked dave what time it was he'd tell you how to build a watch, the history of watchmaking and how it shaped our nation, the need and historical precedent for the right to wear watches and choose your own time zone, before finally asking you what time it was because he had a meeting he didn't want to be late for. :)

As for sheldon.. well.... you need to have 'the right stuff' for interviews and tv appearances. Sheldon's stuff is wrong. And he won't train to be better at it, he thinks he's great. He isn't. If the NFA wanted to get into the PR game, they'd have to look at recruiting someone who's got that right stuff.

In the meantime, a large batch of pissed off gun owners came together with little organization from anyone and forced change over a specific issue all on their own. They did more and created more change and action in a few months than the orgs did in years. The result would have been the same without the existence of either org. So. That's where we're at.

atr
10-08-2014, 09:16 PM
From Blaneys first announcement in Powassan last summer to the tabling of this new bill , the CSAA is all over it and the NFA is irrelevent . The gov't wouldn't even meet with the NFA so they can thump all they want but you need a seat at the table to effect change .

speedloader
10-08-2014, 10:06 PM
The CSSA has done good work with public relations. They do a decent job on tv and have managed to get on tv a fair bit when there is a contentious issue going on (like the swiss issue). To that degree they've done their job, but you know - that doesn't happen that often and they spend a lot of time and money absolutely achieving nothing in their dealings with the gov't. At least the nfa has the excuse that it's all volunteer and they only have so much time - these guys are supposed to be organizing gun owners and their fight against bad law full time as their main job... when was the last time you heard them a) be successful in changing the laws or b) effectively organizing or uniting gun owners in a common campaign for change? Like... never?? They 'negotiate' behind closed doors, come up with horrible deals that everyone hates and shoots down, and then try to take credit when something positive happens that they had very little if anything to do with. I'd actually be happier with them if they spent all their time on PR stuff that really helped promote positive firearms thinking across canada. They aren't horrible at that.

The NFA actually used to be better at dealing with the gov't, and they were very proficient with legal issues, helping a LOT of canadians who'd run afoul of the law inappropriately and getting involved in legal challenges. But - they don't really seem to do that much anymore and instead of really growing stronger and building on the works of Dave tomlinson, they've kind of just fallen apart and are now the equivalent of pita without any of the success.

They've never been great at the PR stuff - dave, bless his soul, was a great guy and a hell of a knowledgeable man and quite clever - but in interviews he just didn't have that 'magic' like we see with solomon for example. In fact - if you asked dave what time it was he'd tell you how to build a watch, the history of watchmaking and how it shaped our nation, the need and historical precedent for the right to wear watches and choose your own time zone, before finally asking you what time it was because he had a meeting he didn't want to be late for. :)

As for sheldon.. well.... you need to have 'the right stuff' for interviews and tv appearances. Sheldon's stuff is wrong. And he won't train to be better at it, he thinks he's great. He isn't. If the NFA wanted to get into the PR game, they'd have to look at recruiting someone who's got that right stuff.

In the meantime, a large batch of pissed off gun owners came together with little organization from anyone and forced change over a specific issue all on their own. They did more and created more change and action in a few months than the orgs did in years. The result would have been the same without the existence of either org. So. That's where we're at.

Foxer -once again I think you completely nailed it right here
well said

Doug_M
10-09-2014, 04:56 AM
As for sheldon.. well.... you need to have 'the right stuff' for interviews and tv appearances. Sheldon's stuff is wrong. And he won't train to be better at it, he thinks he's great. He isn't. If the NFA wanted to get into the PR game, they'd have to look at recruiting someone who's got that right stuff.

Rod Giltaca!

awndray
10-09-2014, 05:49 AM
The CSSA has affected change by doing things their way...I think? Never quite sure as they don't seem to tell the membership much.
I agree. As a member (for club insurance purposes), I barely get any information from them.

The CSSA has done good work with public relations. They do a decent job on tv and have managed to get on tv a fair bit when there is a contentious issue going on (like the swiss issue).
Television? I assume it's on select channels in select parts of the country, because I've never seen anything. As for doing good work with public relations; which public? Again, I've never seen anything around here. Other than the members at our club, nobody knows what I'm talking about when I bring up those four letters. I'd say they need to do a better job at making their presence known if they want the public to get onboard.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 08:00 AM
While i agree that the CSSA is too soft, the problem is that the nfa may be all 'no compromise' but they're also getting absolutely nothing done, and now the gov't wont' even talk to them. You could pay YOURSELF to 'not compromise' and get nothing done and achieve just as much.

Are we here to fight alligators or drain the swamp? Grass roots gun owner drives like the cz/swiss event are getting more stuff done than the orgs are these days and that's free. The nfa is focused more on membership these days by chest thumping without producing but they're slicing their throats long term, the gov't won't take them seriously again and for everyone they're getting to sign up there's another gun owner who thinks they're nuts. And the CSSA isn't doing much better - and their people are paid to be working on this stuff full time.

It's not pretty. We're going to regret that when the day comes that the opposition really does win an election.

The NFA does far more than you know apparently

Instead of making assumptions on their focus perhaps you should sit back and talk with them instead so you can be properly informed. Something they are happy to do so unlike the cssa whom wants it to be "inner circle" crap.

Foxer
10-09-2014, 09:17 AM
Television? I assume it's on select channels in select parts of the country, because I've never seen anything. As for doing good work with public relations; which public? Again, I've never seen anything around here. Other than the members at our club, nobody knows what I'm talking about when I bring up those four letters. I'd say they need to do a better job at making their presence known if they want the public to get onboard. Maybe - maybe I just watch news more or something, but i've seen tony on tv many many times. Usually after some species of 'news event'. For example - saw him lots during the 'gun registry' debates and votes, or the dawson incident, etc etc. Stormbringer appeared for them a few times in debates and did quite passably.

As to 'which public', that would be the 'general public', the people who don't know and don't care much one way or another about guns, but who COULD suddenly care if the anti's feed them misinformation unchallenged. And like i said, he did a decent job presenting 'our' side of the issues.

BUT - you're quite right in that these are relatively 'rare' events. Even people who have seen him and listened probably don't remember 'CSSA', as you say. Which was my point - when they do this kind of stuff they do ok at it - but they don't do it very much and it makes me wonder what they're doing the rest of the time, because it's sure not producing solid results. I'd think they'd do MORE for us by, as you say, doing a better job of making their presence know, and working on presenting a positive firearms image in Canada rather than spinning their wheels at the 'negotiation' table.

Foxer
10-09-2014, 09:31 AM
The NFA does far more than you know apparently


Really. Well if that's true i'm sure you'll be able to post a list of their recent successes. I mentioned their work in the legal arena... please, tell me all about their many victories in other areas.

You can start with their great works on the latest issue, the whole cz/swiss arms thing. Tell me about how they really rallied firearms owners to communicate with the gov't effectively on the issue. Enlighten me as to their great negotiatons with the gov't on how best to resolve this. Point to their wonderful public relations work on our behalf over this issue.

Truth is they didn't organize gun owners, they weren't at the table, and the only 'pr' they've done is to gun owners telling them not to vote CPC next time and let the libs in to 'teach the cpc a lesson'. Which is about as stupid as it gets. They failed utterly to be relevant at all. If anything - they're working against gun owners interest. This law will allow cz' and swiss's to be non-restricted again, and they're hoping it dies on the table. Brilliant.

They say that's a good thing. Is it REALLY a good thing to keep the Cz' and swiss's prohib'd? I don't think so. I doubt the owners think so. The NFA thinks so. And why? I suspect they're bitter from being cut out of the loop, but they're out of the loop because of their own actions.



Instead of making assumptions on their focus perhaps you should sit back and talk with them instead so you can be properly informed. Something they are happy to do so unlike the cssa whom wants it to be "inner circle" crap.

Amusingly, the last time I talked to sheldon he told me in no uncertain terms that he owes NO explanation whatsoever of what the NFA does or is doing to anyone who is not a member :) Although to be fair that was after about an hour of us discussing various things they'd been up to and while I was a member at the time I don't think he even asked and I don't recall volunteering that, so obviously not quite as 'secret squirrel' as some.

As i've said - i like sheldon. And he's passionate about the cause. He just isn't very talented at this stuff, and while he might make a great president as an 'organizer' and such he's not good at the actual things that need to get done. Which is no shame - lots of presidents of lots of orgs are not actually qualified to do the work the org does, that's why you have employees or the like. They're there to provide guidance and set the direction. But - they're not doing a very good job of that either. They are recruiting and that's their primary focus right now. Their efforts will produce memberships, but not results for gun owners.

As the saying goes "don't kid yourself kid". I know my stuff. But you don't need to be particularly brilliant to see that the NFA is not achieving any tangible results at this time, and are unlikely to in the near future unless they change tactics radically.

awndray
10-09-2014, 09:40 AM
Amusingly, the last time I talked to sheldon he told me in no uncertain terms that he owes NO explanation whatsoever of what the NFA does or is doing to anyone who is not a member :)

As the saying goes "don't kid yourself kid". I know my stuff. But you don't need to be particularly brilliant to see that the NFA is not achieving any tangible results at this time, and are unlikely to in the near future unless they change tactics radically.
How very classy of him. Just as classy as not returning a phone call and email when I wanted to discuss my concerns about the organization. I'm glad I let my membership expire.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 10:23 AM
Really. Well if that's true i'm sure you'll be able to post a list of their recent successes. I mentioned their work in the legal arena... please, tell me all about their many victories in other areas.

You can start with their great works on the latest issue, the whole cz/swiss arms thing. Tell me about how they really rallied firearms owners to communicate with the gov't effectively on the issue. Enlighten me as to their great negotiatons with the gov't on how best to resolve this. Point to their wonderful public relations work on our behalf over this issue.

Truth is they didn't organize gun owners, they weren't at the table, and the only 'pr' they've done is to gun owners telling them not to vote CPC next time and let the libs in to 'teach the cpc a lesson'. Which is about as stupid as it gets. They failed utterly to be relevant at all. If anything - they're working against gun owners interest. This law will allow cz' and swiss's to be non-restricted again, and they're hoping it dies on the table. Brilliant.

They say that's a good thing. Is it REALLY a good thing to keep the Cz' and swiss's prohib'd? I don't think so. I doubt the owners think so. The NFA thinks so. And why? I suspect they're bitter from being cut out of the loop, but they're out of the loop because of their own actions.




Amusingly, the last time I talked to sheldon he told me in no uncertain terms that he owes NO explanation whatsoever of what the NFA does or is doing to anyone who is not a member :) Although to be fair that was after about an hour of us discussing various things they'd been up to and while I was a member at the time I don't think he even asked and I don't recall volunteering that, so obviously not quite as 'secret squirrel' as some.

As i've said - i like sheldon. And he's passionate about the cause. He just isn't very talented at this stuff, and while he might make a great president as an 'organizer' and such he's not good at the actual things that need to get done. Which is no shame - lots of presidents of lots of orgs are not actually qualified to do the work the org does, that's why you have employees or the like. They're there to provide guidance and set the direction. But - they're not doing a very good job of that either. They are recruiting and that's their primary focus right now. Their efforts will produce memberships, but not results for gun owners.

As the saying goes "don't kid yourself kid". I know my stuff. But you don't need to be particularly brilliant to see that the NFA is not achieving any tangible results at this time, and are unlikely to in the near future unless they change tactics radically.


No that is for Sheldon to decide to post if he wants to respond to you on it.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 10:24 AM
How very classy of him. Just as classy as not returning a phone call and email when I wanted to discuss my concerns about the organization. I'm glad I let my membership expire.

That is unusual of him.. I get a response as a rule in very short order to any emails I send him that require a response ( I also send him and others a ton of other info that does not need any response)

Foxer
10-09-2014, 10:40 AM
No that is for Sheldon to decide to post if he wants to respond to you on it.

You were the one who made the statement, not sheldon.

However, As I suspected, obviously you don't know of any achievements of theirs to post either. And please don't say "oh yes i do but they're secret", if an achievement is a worth while achievement it should be pretty obvious and verifiable.

In the meantime - i stand by my rather easy to see statement that they've achieved little to nothing in the last while and for quite some time outside of the legal front, and less than they used to there. And given the gov't has no time for them, coupled with the fact they're quickly losing respect amongst those who feel their antics are more buffoonery than benefit, it's not looking terribly positive that we're going to see a change in that respect in the immediate future.

They will wind up with a large membership of people who like what they have to say and the chest-thumping and don't really care about getting any results, and then you're kinda stuck because the membership won't let you do anything substantial because it takes too long and that's NOT what they want to hear and others won't take you seriously. Like i said - you wind up being pita but without as much success.

We'll see.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 10:54 AM
You were the one who made the statement, not sheldon.

However, As I suspected, obviously you don't know of any achievements of theirs to post either. And please don't say "oh yes i do but they're secret", if an achievement is a worth while achievement it should be pretty obvious and verifiable.

In the meantime - i stand by my rather easy to see statement that they've achieved little to nothing in the last while and for quite some time outside of the legal front, and less than they used to there. And given the gov't has no time for them, coupled with the fact they're quickly losing respect amongst those who feel their antics are more buffoonery than benefit, it's not looking terribly positive that we're going to see a change in that respect in the immediate future.

They will wind up with a large membership of people who like what they have to say and the chest-thumping and don't really care about getting any results, and then you're kinda stuck because the membership won't let you do anything substantial because it takes too long and that's NOT what they want to hear and others won't take you seriously. Like i said - you wind up being pita but without as much success.

We'll see.



Yes I did.. and already got a response from Sheldon.. but i don't post emails from others w/o permission

speedloader
10-09-2014, 11:14 AM
Shalimar- how do we post the latest canadian firearms journal article?
that Sheldon did on common sense firearms act or can we?
because non-members don't see it, it is very well written and fact based truth
trouble is like I said only we get it in print version in the mailbox this stuff needs to get out there

Doug_M
10-09-2014, 11:24 AM
No that is for Sheldon to decide to post if he wants to respond to you on it.

Um...he's calling you out Shalimar because you called him out. Don't cop out, we're waiting for your answers.

Doug_M
10-09-2014, 11:26 AM
Yes I did.. and already got a response from Sheldon.. but i don't post emails from others w/o permission


Cop out

Doug_M
10-09-2014, 11:28 AM
Shalimar- how do we post the latest canadian firearms journal article?
that Sheldon did on common sense firearms act or can we?
because non-members don't see it, it is very well written and fact based truth
trouble is like I said only we get it in print version in the mailbox this stuff needs to get out there

I'm a member, I read it, it's more garbage like what RangeBob posted of Shawn's earlier in this thread. Currently the NFA leadership is so "enraged" that the CPC haven't repealed C-68 that they are currently going about cutting of their nose to spite their face.

Edit: that was a different thread (oops), here is the link to Shawn's "analysis" that I was referring too http://gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?15370-Harper-government-introduces-firearms-bill-to-cut-red-tape&p=185982&viewfull=1#post185982

RangeBob
10-09-2014, 11:38 AM
Maybe - maybe I just watch news more or something, but i've seen tony on tv many many times.
So have I. Sun News of course. CBC a few times.
When he was before Toronto City Hall about range closures, every Toronto channel.
But I see him only when some web forum tells me he's going to be there -- otherwise I would never have seen it.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 11:38 AM
Shalimar- how do we post the latest canadian firearms journal article?
that Sheldon did on common sense firearms act or can we?
because non-members don't see it, it is very well written and fact based truth
trouble is like I said only we get it in print version in the mailbox this stuff needs to get out there

It's tricky to do.. since we won't have the source other than emaiil and the forum does not support direct HTML iirc.. if it did I'd just post it that way.

However I can ask Sheldon if he can supply a copy in postable form and/or someone at the NFA post it.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 11:40 AM
Um...he's calling you out Shalimar because you called him out. Don't cop out, we're waiting for your answers.


Cop out

Not a cop out.. it's being respectful for others privacy and to post it w/o permission also iirc is a violation of the rules for GOC. Sheldon has been informed of this thread and the questions asked. If he gives permission I'll post what he had to say but not w/o such permission.

Foxer
10-09-2014, 12:07 PM
Yes I did.. and already got a response from Sheldon.. but i don't post emails from others w/o permission

First - you are the KING of reposting other people's stuff :) so no love for THAT excuse :)

But second, nobody's asking you to repost anything from sheldon. presumably his reply either mentiones the success they've had in changing laws, etc, or it does not. If it does, post the successes - they can hardly be secret. If it doesn't - well then we're back to we don't know of any. Don't blame Sheldon for this - you were the one who brought it up.

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 12:35 PM
First - you are the KING of reposting other people's stuff :) so no love for THAT excuse :)

But second, nobody's asking you to repost anything from sheldon. presumably his reply either mentiones the success they've had in changing laws, etc, or it does not. If it does, post the successes - they can hardly be secret. If it doesn't - well then we're back to we don't know of any. Don't blame Sheldon for this - you were the one who brought it up.



I'm not blaming anyone.. nor am I acting as an NFA spokesperson.. but since you asked for a list of what they have done that is best to come from them.. hence why I emailed him about it.

Kane63
10-09-2014, 01:18 PM
I'm not blaming anyone.. nor am I acting as an NFA spokesperson.. but since you asked for a list of what they have done that is best to come from them.. hence why I emailed him about it.

You made the statement that Foxer wasn't aware of what the NFA is doing or has accomplished, it has nothing to do with Sheldon and everything to do with the reasons for why you made that statement.

You can't just make a claim and not back it up with facts or information, doing that puts you in the same category as "her ilk". ;D

Shalimar
10-09-2014, 01:26 PM
You made the statement that Foxer wasn't aware of what the NFA is doing or has accomplished, it has nothing to do with Sheldon and everything to do with the reasons for why you made that statement.

You can't just make a claim and not back it up with facts or information, doing that puts you in the same category as "her ilk". ;D


Yes I did.. and Foxer to use his own words "I won't do the work for you" did not email Sheldon afaik.. etc etc.. I did.. and am awaiting permission to post what was said.

That is not making any claim and not backing it up.. it is doing due diligence to get permission to post what was said in private email as I've already pointed out. That is anything but being the same as cukier etc.. to say the least.. Not to mention the attempt to insult others with that tactic.

Kane63
10-09-2014, 01:44 PM
Yes I did.. and Foxer to use his own words "I won't do the work for you" did not email Sheldon afaik.. etc etc.. I did.. and am awaiting permission to post what was said.

That is not making any claim and not backing it up.. it is doing due diligence to get permission to post what was said in private email as I've already pointed out. That is anything but being the same as cukier etc.. to say the least.. Not to mention the attempt to insult others with that tactic.

You shouldn't need permission to post a list of achievements that are public knowledge and that you are using as a basis for your arguments.

Foxer
10-09-2014, 02:12 PM
I'm not blaming anyone.. nor am I acting as an NFA spokesperson.. but since you asked for a list of what they have done that is best to come from them.. hence why I emailed him about it.

Sure you are - "gee, i'd love to answer your question but I can't because of sheldon. Sawwweee! :)"

LOL - are you kidding? :) Man up there boy - YOU opined that there was more going on than i knew about - so lets hear YOUR reply. I never asked what sheldon thought.

C'mon!! Big boys answer their own questions, they don't run and hide behind someone else's email. I'm asking YOU - what have they achieved? What new laws, what great public relations victories for gun owners, etc etc. You've claimed to be a supporter of them, surely if they've actually achieved something you'd have at least some ideas. If you don't, then they probably haven't achieved much :)

No hiding behind others - to YOUR knowledge what have they done in the last few years.

Gunny_Guns
10-09-2014, 02:49 PM
This is a warning to everybody involved in this thread! Keep it civil, professional and respectful. There are personal attacks, baiting, and trolling in TOO MANY posts. After this post if I catch anybody acting out, I will give infractions for every post that I feel is a personal attack, trolling or baiting before and after this post.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

jwirecom109
10-09-2014, 05:03 PM
Locked, this is exactly why the firearms are no longer on this forum. It causes too much conflict.

Tactical72
02-24-2015, 04:22 PM
From the University of Calgary Firearms association facebook page.

CLUB NEWS RELEASE:
Mr. Shawn Bevins, no longer works for, nor is he associated with Canada's National Firearms Association. As such, our club is no longer associated with him. More to follow pending an executive meeting.

Henry Lung
President and Founder

Can anyone confirm or add details of this news?

Steveo9mm
02-24-2015, 04:26 PM
:popcorn:

kennymo
02-24-2015, 04:32 PM
Well that's interesting....strange place for the news to break....

Tactical72
02-24-2015, 04:34 PM
Also via facebook, TVPressPass is also saying Shawn was 'abruptly fired'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kennymo
02-24-2015, 04:39 PM
Well, I can't wait to get home and check Facebook now...I'm sure the NFA page will likely break the Internet tonight.

RangeBob
02-24-2015, 04:48 PM
from CGN


Effective immediately Mr. Shawn Bevins no longer works for, nor is he associated with Canada’s National Firearms Association. Please revise any NFA contact information accordingly. As this is an internal personnel matter with legal and privacy implications, there will be no public discussion of the reasons for this change.

Yours truly,

Sheldon Clare
President


Sheldon Clare, M.A.
President & CEO
Canada's National Firearms Association

Doug_M
02-24-2015, 04:51 PM
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-hC6L_A67iaI/VO0ANU_JO2I/AAAAAAAAC4w/JmfENkPwygw/s2048/Capture.PNG

Very strange. Seems like there must have been "something" that happened as there is no "we regret to inform you..." My NFA renewal letter arrived in the mail today. Was going to renew based solely on the legal/court work they do. Will have to see how the above issue plays out first. I hope this org doesn't implode and can get back on track.

TheHydrant
02-24-2015, 05:41 PM
this is a fascinating development.

kennymo
02-24-2015, 05:52 PM
On the surface, it seems bad. A heated falling out at the least... I'm afraid this will remain a mystery for the time being. Some entertaining opinions on FB...

Petamocto
02-24-2015, 05:58 PM
This will have one of two outcomes for me:

1. This will be the result of even more things I don't like about the NFA, so I will continue not supporting them and their "No compromise" bravado that only serves to mobilize our enemies, and frankly embarrasses me as a responsible gun owner who tries to sell us as being reasonable people; or

2. The sign of positive changes. Hopefully a course correction that aims to be less confrontational and more persuasive. Of course I will always have faith that Rod Giltaca* will take over a senior position in the NFA, at which point I will not only join immediately, but make a significant donation.

*Footnote: I continue to be his #1 fan, both of Rod the man and Rod the ever-bolder shirt wearer.

ScottNT
02-24-2015, 06:01 PM
Not trying to start a rumour but I heard form a friend of a friend that they found an airsoft in his house and that was his 3rd warning.

Mark-II
02-24-2015, 06:36 PM
The NFA Facebook presence has been an embarrassment to the org. I stopped following it when the tinfoil redneckery got too thick.

Bevins was in charge of that, according to himself.

Afterwards I dropped the NFA a caustic bit of feedback citing him as the reason I wouldn't be renewing.

Maybe they got one too many such letters.

Petamocto
02-24-2015, 06:38 PM
...Afterwards I dropped the NFA a caustic bit of feedback citing him as the reason I wouldn't be renewing...

Good on you for doing that. Losing a committed member counts for 100 people like me saying "I won't join unless you...".

Canada_Phil
02-24-2015, 06:40 PM
Who cares.

At least this confirms this "organization" has ZERO transparency.

Canuck223
02-24-2015, 06:41 PM
I'm afraid I was not a fan of his, and won't fake sadness at his departure.

soulchaser
02-24-2015, 07:39 PM
I know a few people on the "inside" of the CPC.

The stories they have told me about Bevins are cringe worthy.

He was banned from several MP's offices including our biggest ally on Parliament Hill, Garry Breitkreuz.

Hopefully now thd NFA will tone down the rhetoric that got them removed from the firearms law reform discussions, get back to the table and actually be a voice AT THE TABLE for their members.

webster
02-24-2015, 07:40 PM
The NFA Facebook presence has been an embarrassment to the org. I stopped following it when the tinfoil redneckery got too thick.

Bevins was in charge of that, according to himself.

Afterwards I dropped the NFA a caustic bit of feedback citing him as the reason I wouldn't be renewing.

Maybe they got one too many such letters.

Conveniently enough, I just got my renewal notice. I'm thinking of sending a similar letter in place of my usual $35 plus donation. That Facebook page is an embarrassment.

soulchaser
02-24-2015, 07:44 PM
Conveniently enough, I just got my renewal notice. I'm thinking of sending a similar letter in place of my usual $35 plus donation. That Facebook page is an embarrassment.

Aren't there 2 FB pages, an "official" one and another one?

Which was he in charge of?

Pizzed
02-24-2015, 07:47 PM
I know a few people on the "inside" of the CPC.

The stories they have told me about Bevins are cringe worthy.

He was banned from several MP's offices including our biggest ally on Parliament Hill, Garry Breitkreuz.

Hopefully now thd NFA will tone down the rhetoric that got them removed from the firearms law reform discussions, get back to the table and actually be a voice AT THE TABLE for their members. Sounds like the tables were turned and the 'no compromise' approach boomeranged.

soulchaser
02-24-2015, 07:52 PM
Sounds like the tables were turned and the 'no compromise' approach boomeranged.

Most of the bannings came before that, but he got worse after all the "No compromise" nonsense.

lone-wolf
02-24-2015, 08:03 PM
Who cares.

At least this confirms this "organization" has ZERO transparency.

It's not normal or professional for employers to announce they've fired such and such.

Petamocto
02-24-2015, 08:13 PM
It's not normal or professional for employers to announce they've fired such and such.

It absolutely is in good organizations led by good people.

Nobody has to be thrown under the bus, and it can be kept professional.

Just saying something like "We did not agree with X's performance on Y project", squashes rumours before they start, and lets everyone else know what standard is expected.

Strewth
02-24-2015, 08:34 PM
It absolutely is in good organizations led by good people.

Nobody has to be thrown under the bus, and it can be kept professional.

Just saying something like "We did not agree with X's performance on Y project", squashes rumours before they start, and lets everyone else know what standard is expected.

I'm torn on this one, but I think I agree with Petamocto. Why bother announcing this on social media without giving a reason both parties agree on? It's bloody Facebook, rumour capital of our times. An employer has no obligation to announce a termination and all it's gory details to the world, but for a publicly funded organisation to whitewash such invites baseless speculation and money withheld, no?

stevesummit
02-24-2015, 08:36 PM
It absolutely is in good organizations led by good people.

Nobody has to be thrown under the bus, and it can be kept professional.

Just saying something like "We did not agree with X's performance on Y project", squashes rumours before they start, and lets everyone else know what standard is expected.

This has never been a strong point for either of the big orgs running up here . I am sure there is more going on behind the scenes that the masses don't really need to know . with time the stories will come out as they always do . But till then as per normal for the gun community there will be rumors and speculation as to what went on

kennymo
02-24-2015, 08:39 PM
I'm torn on this one, but I think I agree with Petamocto. Why bother announcing this on social media without giving a reason both parties agree on? It's bloody Facebook, rumour capital of our times. An employer has no obligation to announce a termination and all it's gory details to the world, but for a publicly funded organisation to whitewash such invites baseless speculation and money withheld, no?

I am curious as to just how the University shooting club ties into this. That was a bit of sever all ties speech from them as well...

88 louie
02-24-2015, 08:47 PM
I also hope Rod Giltaca gets the job. A calm sensible communicator that would do the organization well.
I was going to join if, Rod won the last election, but no, so no.

webster
02-24-2015, 09:25 PM
Aren't there 2 FB pages, an "official" one and another one?

Which was he in charge of?

The "Official" page is the sh!tshow I'm talking about. I'd hate to see the unofficial page.

Canada_Phil
02-24-2015, 09:47 PM
It's not normal or professional for employers to announce they've fired such and such.

Employer??

I thought this was supposed to be a non-profit kind of advocacy group... Not some kind of secret society that hid its dirty laundry in the shadows!

They have absolutely ZERO credibility in its current incarnation, and in just the last year alone they have done a TERRIBLE disservice to the image of firearms owners in Canada. Utterly abysma!.

Oh... Asking for $40,000 for a new "website" said a great deal too!

FALover
02-24-2015, 09:54 PM
I see another firearms organization rising out of the dust and ashes! More division in the ranks. Who needs 'anti's' when our chosen lobby groups implode on themselves?

Rory McCanuck
02-24-2015, 09:54 PM
The "Official" page is the sh!tshow I'm talking about. I'd hate to see the unofficial page.

The top post on the page is a sticky from Sheldon.
His name is now greyed out, as in he's no longer a member of the FB group.
It's like junior high all over again.

FALover
02-24-2015, 09:58 PM
Employer??I thought this was supposed to be a non-profit kind of advocacy group...

Lots of "non-profit" organizations have employees. If they spend all their income they have made no profit.

Petamocto
02-24-2015, 09:58 PM
I see another firearms organization rising out of the dust and ashes! More division in the ranks. Who needs 'anti's' when our chosen lobby groups implode on themselves?

I don't think that's the case. What we really need is an effective organization, and we don't have that yet. We have two choices that collect a lot of money and haven't accomplished anything other than making people feel good about being seen to be doing something. Never mind that the NFA may do more harm than good; it's hard to influence policy when you've been banned from sitting at the discussion table.

If a third option came out I agree that it would seem divided at first, but if they were doing the right sorts of things and got results, people would naturally abandon the other two orgs that haven't been effective.

lone-wolf
02-24-2015, 09:58 PM
I was paraphrasing Clare, who seems to have revised the post to:
As this is an internal personnel matter with legal and privacy implications, there will be no public discussion of the reasons for this change.

Mark-II
02-24-2015, 11:24 PM
I'm not sure which page was which, but my feed would usually have something from the NFA and then have a Shawn Bevins post repeating/sharing/whatever the same thing. Pretty sure I was only on one NFA group, but who knows?

No I'm not an elite operator of social media. I've been told that. Kinda don't care LOL

The email mailouts are moderately more on topic, if the topic is general news of shooting sports and politics in the english speaking world.

What exactly WAS his position anyway?

I mean, besides L'Enfant Provocateur

Jay
02-24-2015, 11:38 PM
...

lone-wolf
02-24-2015, 11:46 PM
For all we know Shawn left and asked the reason not be given. Speculation, which somehow leads to people declaring the NFA is imploding.

Carguy2550
02-25-2015, 12:29 AM
Maybe he is running for office in the upcoming federal election? Seems unlikely but possible.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 12:33 AM
Of course I will always have faith that Rod Giltaca* will take over a senior position in the NFA, at which point I will not only join immediately, but make a significant donation.

I would likely consider signing back up as a member again if he became a significant influence in the direction of the NFA. Based on what i've seen so far, I find him to be an excellent example of the ideal Canadian Firearm Owner. All the knowledge and half the drama of other leading representatives.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 12:37 AM
A few years back i quit a job with a "reputable" big business (top 100 business) in good terms with them, even gave a hug to one of the VP chickies at my exit interview. Next day they sent out a company-wide email stating I'm no longer with the company and continued which alluded to a firing just like this.


Some places do have that policy, and it's strictly to make sure that someone cannot represent themselves as acting on behalf of the company any further. It's legally wise but taste poor :) I don't know how much we can infer from this.

Carguy2550
02-25-2015, 12:37 AM
So has anyone PM'd Rod yet, let him know there's potential job opening.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 12:42 AM
BTW - just to put it out there, I think blair hagen is an awesome guy too. THey have some good people, they just need to juggle their talent a bit and re-define their focus.

lone-wolf
02-25-2015, 12:47 AM
Less focus on firearms, more on facebook.

What about Ericka?

Foxer
02-25-2015, 12:48 AM
What about Ericka?

I don't know her.

lone-wolf
02-25-2015, 12:54 AM
She's pretty helpful on a individual level. And has been a public figure for the NFA(see below)
I don't know much about her management skills, so I can't say much beyond she's cool, same goes for Rod.

http://i.cbc.ca/1.2748681.1409169821!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/peter-mackay-wears-no-compromise-pro-gun-t-shirt.jpg


Maybe he is running for office in the upcoming federal election? Seems unlikely but possible.

That wouldn't be shocking. The Libertarian Party is trying to get candidates in every riding.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 01:10 AM
She's pretty helpful on a individual level. And has been a public figure for the NFA(see below)
She's the one in the middle right? :) I kid, i kid..

Well - at least if you have knowledge of her on a personal level and it's been positive that does speak well of her.


I don't know much about her management skills, so I can't say much beyond she's cool, same goes for Rod.

well... cool's a start i guess :) Perhaps she just hasn't had the opportunity to shine on larger issues yet.

CivilAdvantage
02-25-2015, 01:26 AM
This will have one of two outcomes for me:

1. This will be the result of even more things I don't like about the NFA, so I will continue not supporting them and their "No compromise" bravado that only serves to mobilize our enemies, and frankly embarrasses me as a responsible gun owner who tries to sell us as being reasonable people; or

2. The sign of positive changes. Hopefully a course correction that aims to be less confrontational and more persuasive. Of course I will always have faith that Rod Giltaca* will take over a senior position in the NFA, at which point I will not only join immediately, but make a significant donation.

*Footnote: I continue to be his #1 fan, both of Rod the man and Rod the ever-bolder shirt wearer.

Some of my informed and uninformed opinion on the matter...
1. Shawn is not the problem there.
2. According to a MP and other folks in Ottawa I've spoken to directly, it's not Shawn who is banned from Parliament. (their words, not mine)
3. I'm sure things will shake out over the next couple of days at the NFA and there will be communication (I don't speak for the NFA, I just know that communication is important to some on the board and I have confidence in them). Let them work it out.
4. Me in the NFA? No. (Thanks Petamocto)

kschneider
02-25-2015, 01:52 AM
Sheldon, as well as many admins have been removed.

Gunny_Guns
02-25-2015, 01:54 AM
I am curious as to just how the University shooting club ties into this. That was a bit of sever all ties speech from them as well...

As post secondary shooting clubs we have to be involved with the NFA to a certain extent. The NFA are our last lines of support if the schools/government attempted to abolish all post secondary shooting clubs. We also invite the NFA to events and other things along those lines. If something happened we would need to distance ourselves from that aspect to maintain the reputation of our clubs and our post secondary institutions. This is purely speculation as I have not spoken to any of the clubs in regards to this matter and I know just about as much as you do about this situation.

But for my case I deal with Ericka (who is awesome) for anything I need help with or any time I contact the NFA.

Strangeday
02-25-2015, 02:05 AM
This whole thing smells like some sort of misconduct expense account fraud/sexual harassment type stuff. The wording and the terse verbiage mirror a lot of what I have seen in the past in these type of cases.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 02:27 AM
Sheldon, as well as many admins have been removed.

By WHO? Sheldon was president I thought. That's got to be a rumour surely

Foxer
02-25-2015, 02:32 AM
4. Me in the NFA? No.
Awwwww!!!! You suck. I mean sure, I'd say exactly the same thing and can think of a whole bunch of business reasons why it would be a bad move for you, and would hardly counsel anyone to jump into an org in the middle of what appears to be a good ole palace coup, but those facts in no way mitigate the level of suck involved here! :)


What if we offered you bacon? Taaasty bacon!

blacksmithden
02-25-2015, 02:39 AM
By WHO? Sheldon was president I thought. That's got to be a rumour surely

The facebook group's admin list is looking a little leaner for sure. Sheldon's name is not there right now.

awndray
02-25-2015, 06:15 AM
....

Good on you. I did the same some time ago.

Mark-II
02-25-2015, 06:20 AM
Good on you. I did the same some time ago.

Ever get a reply?

awndray
02-25-2015, 06:23 AM
Yep. I wasn't satisfied with the response. I put it all behind me.

Petamocto
02-25-2015, 06:26 AM
Rod, I really think this is your calling, good sir.

Sometimes the circumstances present themselves to us in a manner that is almost manifest destiny; this may be your purpose in life career-wise.

All of the things you bring up in your videos like the arbitrary nature of the classification system; people are telling you that we think you are the best person available who can attempt to influence change in the right direction.

You're making a difference now at a grassroots level, but you are in a unique position to influence policy in Ottawa, and I have faith that you can become a legend to Canadian firearm owners.

Rod Giltaca: right guy, right message, right tone.

Jäger
02-25-2015, 07:59 AM
The "no compromise" approach was a refreshing show of solidarity when the RCMP made changes to the FRT that set things in motion that would eventually result in armed men at my door to take my property from me under the threat of deadly force. Status quo tactics get status quo results as they say. At the very least, Shawn's contributions to the NFA formed a unique and valuable facet to the face of gun rights advocacy in this country. The NFA grew dramatically in the past year and that's good for everybody. I hope the group doesn't flounder amidst infighting, a return to failed strategies or vocal Quislings.

Doug_M
02-25-2015, 08:26 AM
The "no compromise" approach was a refreshing show of solidarity when the RCMP made changes to the FRT

It certainly was, but it later morphed into something foolish coupled with the false belief that we don't need public opinion on our side to affect changes to law.


that set things in motion that would eventually result in armed men at my door to take my property from me under the threat of deadly force.

Did this actually happen to you, or are you saying this is what would have eventually happened if the thousands of gun owners, spurred on my a multitude of forums, organizations, email lists and word of mouth did not write the gov and said gov acted? Neither the NFA, nor cetainly Shawn Bevins, can take credit for that. No one group can. Although when C-42 becomes law and your 858 or Swiss Arms is returned to its original classification, the NFA will have had nothing to do with that as they were not at the table and they railed against the bill when it was first revealed.


Status quo tactics get status quo results as they say.

What seems to be getting results these days over the "old" days is communication and organization (amongst us gun owners) thanks to the Internet. Couple that with a gun owner friendly (or neutral if you prefer) government. There are quite a few "old timers" (I'm not one) who did a lot, including marching on Ottawa, but were up against a majority Liberal government. The NFA has had some successes in court to which I am grateful. Their efforts to affect change in law, however, hasn't gotten any where.


At the very least, Shawn's contributions to the NFA formed a unique and valuable facet to the face of gun rights advocacy in this country. The NFA grew dramatically in the past year and that's good for everybody. I hope the group doesn't flounder amidst infighting, a return to failed strategies or vocal Quislings.

Well he did help attract a boisterous crowd on their FB page, a crowd that shouts down others who don't necessarily agree with some of the direction Shawn had been taking the NFA. Don't think you understand what Quisling means. You talk about failed strategies. When I joined the NFA three years ago they were excited and proud at being the first and only gun rights group to have official lobbyist status. They had meetings with gov and had the gov's ear. Today they don't have the gov's ear and are not engaged with gov in any way. That is the failed strategy. I hope they do return to where they were a few years ago because we do need their opinon expressed to gov and not just the CSSA's. Right now they are being ignored, regardless of how they have grown.

Canada_Phil
02-25-2015, 08:46 AM
The "no compromise" approach was a refreshing show of solidarity when the RCMP made changes to the FRT that set things in motion that would eventually result in armed men at my door to take my property from me under the threat of deadly force. Status quo tactics get status quo results as they say. At the very least, Shawn's contributions to the NFA formed a unique and valuable facet to the face of gun rights advocacy in this country. The NFA grew dramatically in the past year and that's good for everybody. I hope the group doesn't flounder amidst infighting, a return to failed strategies or vocal Quislings.

Wow.... Just Wow.

3MTA3
02-25-2015, 08:51 AM
A quisling (/ˈkwɪzlɪŋ/; Norwegian pronunciation: [ˈkʋɪsˈlɪŋ]) is a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force.[1][2][3] The word originates from the Norwegian war-time leader Vidkun Quisling, who headed a domestic Nazi collaborationist regime during the Second World War.

kennymo
02-25-2015, 08:54 AM
Well he did help attract a boisterous crowd on their FB page, a crowd that shouts down others who don't necessarily agree with some of the direction Shawn had been taking the NFA.

This is what I've been seeing....anyone suggesting that screaming and yelling until you get tossed from an MP's office might not be the best way to get things done was quickly overwhelmed by screaming and yelling....

No Compromise started out well IMO. Rallied all sorts of gun owners together, got a pile of us pushing in one direction for a change....but at some point, someone decided that volume would be the be all end all game and it's not working out...

Jäger
02-25-2015, 09:22 AM
It certainly was, but it later morphed into something foolish coupled with the false belief that we don't need public opinion on our side to affect changes to law.

The old ways would have the public hardly know we exist, and with certain media outlets in control of the narrative, would react with shock that we can own some of the guns we can own. Public opinion would be to fear us. The NFA had this right....in the sense that we needed to raise our profile and establish ourselves as a present political force and as a presence in Canadian culture.




Did this actually happen to you, or are you saying this is what would have eventually happened if the thousands of gun owners, spurred on my a multitude of forums, organizations, email lists and word of mouth did not write the gov and said gov acted? Neither the NFA, nor cetainly Shawn Bevins, can take credit for that. No one group can. Although when C-42 becomes law and your 858 and Swiss Arms is returned to its original classification, the NFA will have had nothing to do with that as they were not at the table and they railed against the bill when it was first revealed.

No, of course not. But on the first day of each prohibition I had to come to terms with the possibility of this happening. Needless to say I was both enraged and terrified. I struggled to articulate to non-stakeholders that the laws and their effects pitted otherwise good citizens against otherwise good police officers.

I feel very passionately for my freedoms and liberties, property rights and self-defense included. I disagreed with the NFA's official stance on C-42 in that if you asked yourself the question "will it be easier to be a gun owner in Canada after this bill has passed?" the answer would certainly be yes. I understood why their position was what it was in that it failed to address our larger issues in any significant way, shape, or form, but it was a small nudge that made life a little less hellish for the Canadian gun owner.




What seems to be getting results these days over the "old" days is communication and organization (amongst us gun owners) thanks to the Internet. Couple that with a gun owner friendly (or neutral if you prefer) government. There are quite a few "old timers" (I'm not one) who did a lot, including marching on Ottawa, but were up against a majority Liberal government. The NFA has had some successes in court to which I am grateful. Their efforts to affect change in law, however, hasn't gotten any where.


I was 7 when C-68 was passed. I wish I was there to participate. Physical presence sends a strong message, especially in a country like Canada where having STRONG convictions is somewhat rare and geographical separation makes unity in that form difficult.



Well he did help attract a boisterous crowd on their FB page, a crowd that shouts down others who don't necessarily agree with some of the direction Shawn had been taking the NFA. Don't think you understand what Quisling means. You talk about failed strategies. When I joined the NFA three years ago they were excited and proud at being the first and only gun rights group to have official lobbyist status. They had meetings with gov and had the gov's ear. Today they don't have the gov's ear and are not engaged with gov in any way. That is the failed strategy. I hope they do return to where they were a few years ago because we do need their opinon expressed to gov and not just the CSSA's. Right now they are being ignored, regardless of how they have grown.

Like it or not, taking control of the narrative is important. Framing the debate dictates the terms on which you engage and I can speak first hand having employed such tactics over a fraudulent police report I once had to deal with. I'm not sure how one can be loud on social media, but never before had I seen such an outpouring of solidarity and coordinated dissemination of articles and talking points that helped to change the conversation. Even just recently an old high school friend I haven't spoken to in nearly 9 years contacted me regarding gun ownership based solely on my advocacy.

Just to be clear, are we talking about the older strategies that resulted in the RCMP still being in the position they were in to do what they did 19 years later?

If the NFA's strategies are a failure, that does not galvanise other demonstrably unsuccessful strategies. If this is the case we need new ideas and I'm all for that conversation.

As for Quislings, I am referring to gun owners who will continue to insist that the CPC is on our side, that they have our best interests in mind and we need to only be quiet and compliant while relinquishing control of the narrative and everything will work out. Vidkun claimed he could realize the best results for his people by working with the Germans, a force that cared little for the concerns of Norwegians when it came to their grand vision for how things ought to be....just like the present situation.


Wow.... Just Wow.

Your shock is duly noted.

nikobruchev
02-25-2015, 09:56 AM
I honestly think that we need to remove the issue of having two national organizations. Merge the CSSA and NFA, combine the minds and dollars of both organizations. Sure there would be growing pains, but a unified firearms community in Canada is crucial for ensuring our community's voice is heard. Having one group at one meeting and one group at another just splits the message and creates uncertainty. Hell if it didn't look like a career killer for me I would do it myself.

Mark-II
02-25-2015, 10:03 AM
Yep. I wasn't satisfied with the response. I put it all behind me.

More than I got... I think my membership runs for another year yet. We'll see what transpires.

Tactical72
02-25-2015, 10:09 AM
Maybe he is running for office in the upcoming federal election? Seems unlikely but possible.

I think Shawn could serve us better in office than in his old position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zinilin
02-25-2015, 10:10 AM
I honestly think that we need to remove the issue of having two national organizations. Merge the CSSA and NFA
The Canadian SPORTS Shooting Association, by name and definition is not representative of people who believe that firearms ownership, possession, use, storage and transportation occur for reasons other than SPORTS Shooting.

I don't expect either group is willing to change their name, or it's charter, so a merger of minds can never occur.

Self defence is not a SPORT, it is a right.

Mark-II
02-25-2015, 10:11 AM
I'm kinda with Rod on this one. Right now he is his own master and has his own platform.

If he joined up then he would gain a much larger platform, but at the expense of his flexibility to speak his own mind and promote his own ideas.

We don't need another mouthpiece shouting No Compromise.

there are enough NFA brownshirts on the other site doing that

Jäger
02-25-2015, 10:14 AM
I honestly think that we need to remove the issue of having two national organizations. Merge the CSSA and NFA, combine the minds and dollars of both organizations. Sure there would be growing pains, but a unified firearms community in Canada is crucial for ensuring our community's voice is heard. Having one group at one meeting and one group at another just splits the message and creates uncertainty. Hell if it didn't look like a career killer for me I would do it myself.

This is obvious. There are some that would say a two-org system is good "because they have different approaches". I believe a single organization that pursued all methods would be more effective, and I imagine most would agree. I frequently see calls for a Canadian arm of the NRA (which is prohibited by the American NRA's constitution) - but to be faithful the the facts the NRA has a many distinct arms that pursue different types of reform and the United States has other advocacy groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation.

People here tend to long for an NRA type organization because it is both large and successful....with many high profile victories under its belt. Canadians want that sort of effectiveness, but unfortunately lack the unity a consitutional guarantee provides and the decisiveness required to get behind one message. Everyone seems to cry hopelessness and defeat and stop pushing the wagon every time we hit a bump in the road and it's very disappointing. I had been hoping that the surge in NFA popularity last winter/spring would finally result in a single organization advocating one set of reforms, but it seems that will not be the case.

DeathSpok
02-25-2015, 10:33 AM
Probably a bad idea to pay for a life membership ....

kennymo
02-25-2015, 10:37 AM
The trouble with merging the two orgs, or even getting them to work together seems to be that management on both sides are completely unwilling to change anything in order to do so. Two sides with my way or the highway attitudes = no chance. Plus they both seem very willing to throw the other organization under the bus to incite membership....

Doug_M
02-25-2015, 10:38 AM
The old ways would have the public hardly know we exist, and with certain media outlets in control of the narrative, would react with shock that we can own some of the guns we can own. Public opinion would be to fear us. The NFA had this right....in the sense that we needed to raise our profile and establish ourselves as a present political force and as a presence in Canadian culture.

Well I don't know where you are getting your history from but the "old ways" you define is too broad. What time frame are you referencing? What group(s) are you talking about? I don't think many people who don't like the NFA's recent direction want to hide from the public and have the media control the narrative. We want public opinion to change. We want to control the narrative. We want to be more visible. But that needs to be done in a manner that will endear us to the public, not push them away (and I am not talking about anti's here, but Jane and Joe average). Sheldon Clare recently posted on both NFA FB pages (I posted it here on GOC) that "we don't need to convince the public of anything". That is the NFA's current stance. That is the purpose behind Shawn's meme's and public persona. The bolded part the NFA had right, but the execution was a dismal failure.


I was 7 when C-68 was passed. I wish I was there to participate. Physical presence sends a strong message, especially in a country like Canada where having STRONG convictions is somewhat rare and geographical separation makes unity in that form difficult.

What a lot of younger NFA members (and I am not picking or poking) seem to fail to realize is that the fight back then was against a majority Liberal government that was hell bent on pushing this through. The people who wrote and protested were talking to a brick wall. There was no social media to get word out to the general public. Media controlled that and they were the mouth piece of the Liberals and the Coalition for Gun Control.


Like it or not, taking control of the narrative is important. Framing the debate dictates the terms on which you engage and I can speak first hand having employed such tactics over a fraudulent police report I once had to deal with. I'm not sure how one can be loud on social media, but never before had I seen such an outpouring of solidarity and coordinated dissemination of articles and talking points that helped to change the conversation. Even just recently an old high school friend I haven't spoken to in nearly 9 years contacted me regarding gun ownership based solely on my advocacy.


I do like it. I'm an advocate of it. The NFA fumbled the ball with this direction. I saw a large outpouring of solidarity and coordinated efforts too, on CGN and GOC. NFA had it too for a time, then again they went off the rails. And what I then saw was people who questioned this direction shouted off their FB page. So what is left? A group of like-minded who think that they are "right" because there are no dissenting voices, all the while the dissenting voices have left or just stay quite as the shout down isn't worth it anymore.


Just to be clear, are we talking about the older strategies that resulted in the RCMP still being in the position they were in to do what they did 19 years later?

That is fiction. There were no older strategies that resulted in the RCMP still being in their position. Pure fiction. Despite what many believe, there was nothing to be done while the Liberals were in (remember, brick wall) and nothing that could be done by the CPC when they were a minority. Could they/should they have done more during this first term as a majority? I believe so, but I also believe we (as a whole) dropped the ball when the LGR was scrapped. The prohibiting of the SA and 858 was the kick in the pants we as a whole needed to get politically active on a large scale again.


If the NFA's strategies are a failure, that does not galvanise other demonstrably unsuccessful strategies. If this is the case we need new ideas and I'm all for that conversation.

You have not demonstrated any unsuccessful strategies. With the current strategy of pushing for incremental change we are indeed making progress. The NFA was balancing that quite nicely with push for change faster and by fostering a visible community thereby making us more visible to the public in a positive light. That changed about 10-11 months ago and I, for one, want it back.


As for Quislings, I am referring to gun owners who will continue to insist that the CPC is on our side, that they have our best interests in mind and we need to only be quiet and compliant while relinquishing control of the narrative and everything will work out. Vidkun claimed he could realize the best results for his people by working with the Germans, a force that cared little for the concerns of Norwegians when it came to their grand vision for how things ought to be....just like the present situation.

Yeah, you're misusing the term. Closest thing would be a gun owner who complies with a hostile government that wants to say ban semi-autos and he owns a bolt-gun and tells the gov he agrees that semis are bad. You're just describing someone who doesn't agree with you. Regardless, I don't think there are very many people of the sort you describe. Yes there are people who think the CPC are on our side etc, but not many who think we should be quiet and compliant while relinquishing control of the narrative. We do need control of the narrative, but it must be done smartly and that ain't the NFA these days. Best example of it being done smartly I know of is Civil Advantage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWMZv0Bzx6s)

DeathSpok
02-25-2015, 10:40 AM
The trouble with merging the two orgs, or even getting them to work together seems to be that management on both sides are completely unwilling to change anything in order to do so. Two sides with my way or the highway attitudes = no chance. Plus they both seem very willing to throw the other organization under the bus to incite membership....

At the end of the day, isn't that really a decision for the membership? They're both NPOs and have by-laws governing their operation.

If enough of the membership of each organization (and there's probably a fair bit of overlap in their membership as well) wanted it, then it would happen.

I'm not saying it would be an easy process, but if you had sufficient people run to fill the slots on the executive of both organizations on a platform to merge them, then it might actually happen.

awndray
02-25-2015, 10:53 AM
From his own Facebook page:

http://i58.tinypic.com/2jf0hg8.png

In my opinion, all he's done is represent the firearms community in a bad light and has made the fight harder for us.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 10:57 AM
What a lot of younger NFA members (and I am not picking or poking) seem to fail to realize is that the fight back then was against a majority Liberal government that was hell bent on pushing this through.

That's very true Doug, but that's only half the story. The thing that made that a TOTALLY impossible situation for us is that there WAS no 'right wing" party that had ANY chance of forming gov't, so the libs knew they could ANYTHING they wanted without fear of losing the next election.

Remember - the PC party had been destroyed. Reduced to only a couple of seats. The Reform party could not hope to win a seat east of Manitoba, and the remnants of the PC could not hope to win a seat West of Ontario. At the time, there was no possible way for gun owners to rally behind a political option and get them elected and make changes.

It wouldn't be until 2003 that the chance of that happening again would present itself with the formation of the CPC. So for almost 10 years the liberals ran this country virtually unopposed.

Until that time we TRIED the whole beating our chests, screaming to the heavens, etc etc. That was WHY bruce montegue did the things he did.

It pretty much all failed.

The ONLY thing that's worked for us is the NEW approach of working with a gov't that's willing to listen and using political activism like the 'turf mark holland' program to achieve results.

And i have to say the idea that the public didn't know about us is patently insane. Not only was the 'billion dollar boondoggle' news for YEARS, gun owner's rights appeared for the first time in history as an actual election issue for 3 elections running.

At the end of the day you get nowhere in this fight without support from the gov't of the day, and from the people. For whatever reason the nfa decided it didn't need the people, OR the gov't. I'm sorry - that's a losing strategy guaranteed. If they are to be effective, there must be change.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 11:05 AM
At the end of the day, isn't that really a decision for the membership? They're both NPOs and have by-laws governing their operation.

If enough of the membership of each organization (and there's probably a fair bit of overlap in their membership as well) wanted it, then it would happen.

I'm not saying it would be an easy process, but if you had sufficient people run to fill the slots on the executive of both organizations on a platform to merge them, then it might actually happen.

Well here's the thing Deathspok. Mergers usually only work when there's two groups or orgs who are really good at something, and they merge to capitalize on their strengths and become even stronger than either would have been on their own.

Right now - the nfa really doesn't bring any strengths to the table. They aren't actually achieving much. Sadly, they've actually gone from a time when they were ineffective to a time when they actually WERE somewhat effective and achieved results, BACK to a time where they're not effective.

And the CSSA has it's own challenges too.

IF either org got their act together and really did their jobs right, then it wouldn't matter if there was one or two or ten. There's a crap load of them in the states, but everyone knows that the NRA is the go to org for political fights and if you support another that's fine, but be there when the NRA calls. They have a lot of support from the non members too and they use that when fights come up.

In short - our problem isn't that we've got two orgs, it's that we don't have ANY orgs. At least not one that actually does what needs to be done.

Jay
02-25-2015, 11:06 AM
...

Foxer
02-25-2015, 11:09 AM
The way you do it is combine multiple facets and create a new org. For example, if there was a pro-firearms LGBT group.... lol.
There was actually a local chapter of the 'pink pistols' (gay gun shooters) here :) But it just never got off the ground.

I agree that the so-called "red truck blue truck" method of having two orgs can work - but they both need to be strong and work together a little to make it pay off. And right now we're not seeing that.

blacksmithden
02-25-2015, 11:18 AM
It's too easy to have one org to ignore, than many. Sure, one org could have a million members, and be the largest.. But hammering someone's office from multiple vectors is what has worked in the past for all those other organizations. Look at how many LGBT orgs there are, and they've found their way into kindergartens to teach kids its socially more acceptable than being straight. Straight is approaching taboo these days!

The way you do it is combine multiple facets and create a new org. For example, if there was a pro-firearms LGBT group.... lol.

Enough of us are still sore about how the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters basically turned their back on hand gunners when the whole firearms law was being forged. Personally, I never want to have just one organization representing us. On our end, the OFAH had a major chunknof the governments ear back then....even though Cukie had 99% of it.......I didnt like the way they handled things at all. Never again do I want to have only one organization being my only option for having a voice in government and with the public.

Jay
02-25-2015, 11:25 AM
...

Jäger
02-25-2015, 11:44 AM
Well I don't know where you are getting your history from but the "old ways" you define is too broad. What time frame are you referencing? What group(s) are you talking about? I don't think many people who don't like the NFA's recent direction want to hide from the public and have the media control the narrative. We want public opinion to change. We want to control the narrative. We want to be more visible. But that needs to be done in a manner that will endear us to the public, not push them away (and I am not talking about anti's here, but Jane and Joe average). Sheldon Clare recently posted on both NFA FB pages (I posted it here on GOC) that "we don't need to convince the public of anything". That is the NFA's current stance. That is the purpose behind Shawn's meme's and public persona. The bolded part the NFA had right, but the execution was a dismal failure.

Not so much any particular organization, but the conduct of Canadian gun culture as a whole. Generally speaking, the attitude that not making waves will mean that everyone will leave us alone... that strong advocacy and taking a hard line just draws attention to us and brings ruin. As I said, I am all for the conversation where we discuss new ideas. Political change follows (slowly) social change. If the NFA bungled up a good idea, what are your suggestions for getting things back on track? Civil Advantage does a nice job, but it's not something everyone can participate in. We need a way of demonstrating that there's a large community of us out there, not just a few dedicated people with youtube channels.




What a lot of younger NFA members (and I am not picking or poking) seem to fail to realize is that the fight back then was against a majority Liberal government that was hell bent on pushing this through. The people who wrote and protested were talking to a brick wall. There was no social media to get word out to the general public. Media controlled that and they were the mouth piece of the Liberals and the Coalition for Gun Control.

The mess we're in now is largely a result of the conditions you describe, I agree. The government possessed the only means to have its message reach the general public; we were voiceless. I'm not the type of guy who cries "where was the CSSA/NFA when C-68 was rammed through?" because I understand what went on.


... So what is left? A group of like-minded who think that they are "right" because there are no dissenting voices, all the while the dissenting voices have left or just stay quite as the shout down isn't worth it anymore.


Kind of like the general tone of this thread :P




That is fiction. There were no older strategies that resulted in the RCMP still being in their position. Pure fiction. Despite what many believe, there was nothing to be done while the Liberals were in (remember, brick wall) and nothing that could be done by the CPC when they were a minority. Could they/should they have done more during this first term as a majority? I believe so, but I also believe we (as a whole) dropped the ball when the LGR was scrapped. The prohibiting of the SA and 858 was the kick in the pants we as a whole needed to get politically active on a large scale again.


The lack of strategy/direction was the failed strategy. If politics was a non-starter, then the battle had to be won with citizens. How is it I was 16 or 17 years old before I knew you could even own a gun in this country? Sure I grew up in the GTA where shooting clays on a weekend isn't exactly a normal family/friend activity, but that's where the gains needed (and still need) to be made....but nothing. How do I propose we reach these people? The obvious answer on the individual level is take people shooting, not shying away from the subject matter and don't hide your hobby or lifestyle. The grounds are fertile for change with the young generation coming up that love shoot 'em up games like call of duty, are facing a rude awakening when they come to grasp the size and scope of government/taxation, and are generally more open to alternative lifestyles - certainly not all of them, but there are new angles we can pursue and perspective factors that work in our favour that have been less present than before.

As for orgs...I still for the life of me can't figure out why I've had more NRA membership brochures fall out of gun boxes than CSSA or NFA ones....I can only think of one time where I found a CSSA application stuffed into a rifle box. An organization is only as good as its members and it's hard to lay blame for such a failure at any particular person's feet...I guess that brings us back to the collective awakening you mentioned. I still just shake my head when I encounter gun owners who are unaware we even have gun advocacy organizations....not for their ignorance, but for our failures.

I 100% agree with you that the 858/Swiss prohibition seems to have been needed to get people to get off their asses ... myself included.



You have not demonstrated any unsuccessful strategies. With the current strategy of pushing for incremental change we are indeed making progress. The NFA was balancing that quite nicely with push for change faster and by fostering a visible community thereby making us more visible to the public in a positive light. That changed about 10-11 months ago and I, for one, want it back.

Has the CSSA in large part not been pursuing the quiet and humble approach since the CPC was elected? Who do we attribute the progress to? An org? The collective efforts of gun owners across the country? It's hard to swallow the decades-long incremental change approach when the mechanisms to reverse everything on a whim remain in place. Bread tossed to me in a death camp brings me no comfort.



Yeah, you're misusing the term. Closest thing would be a gun owner who complies with a hostile government that wants to say ban semi-autos and he owns a bolt-gun and tells the gov he agrees that semis are bad. You're just describing someone who doesn't agree with you.

If you want to bog the conversation down in semantics, have at it. If you want to be so rigid, you're just describing a collaborator. A Quisling must have the characteristic of believing collaboration is the best way to protect the group's interest coupled with the tragic irony of that collaboration aiding to crush the group's interests. Continued support for the CPC teaches them they don't have to destroy the mechanisms for disarmament to get the firearms vote. It will be our undoing, as the law intended. I have been firm with my MP - I've retained membership in the party but the money stops until actual movement on the issues the firearms community has outlined clearly occurs. No more polished turds.


It's too easy to have one org to ignore, than many. Sure, one org could have a million members, and be the largest.. But hammering someone's office from multiple vectors is what has worked in the past for all those other organizations. Look at how many LGBT orgs there are, and they've found their way into kindergartens to teach kids its socially more acceptable than being straight. Straight is approaching taboo these days!

The way you do it is combine multiple facets and create a new org. For example, if there was a pro-firearms LGBT group.... lol.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Mark-II
02-25-2015, 12:00 PM
Love the facebook post. What a puffed up prima donna. Gets banned (ok, on facebook, so whatever) by the people he's supposed to be representing the org to.

And his fanboys cheer him on for Doin Somthin Right and encourage more of it... Yes...you rock... go and make yourself even more irrelevant to the cause, you big bad alpha bro.... It's like reading the FB of some hot young drama queen that all the guys just want to bang...


what an implosion of mass stupid.

kennymo
02-25-2015, 12:00 PM
The Kook was positioning herself to be some kind of expert in her own mind, and be the earpiece to all the orgs to be able to funnel whatever she wanted from the community. Unfortunately she was unreasonable and rancorous!

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120609034131/starwars/images/8/8c/Rancor-SWE.png

Huh, Wendy looks better than usual in that photo...maybe she's working out?

Mark-II
02-25-2015, 12:10 PM
So the OAFH (or whatever the acronym), best fit the definition of Quislings.

I'm just wondering what the chances are of this Common Sense law actually being passed, signed, sealed, delivered before the writ is dropped.

It would be nice to have the carrot to chew on awhile before the stick gets flung out in front again.

Jay
02-25-2015, 12:22 PM
...

Foxer
02-25-2015, 12:27 PM
So the OAFH (or whatever the acronym), best fit the definition of Quislings.

I think it's worth mentioning that while without a doubt 'quisling' is a very good definition of them AT THAT TIME given what they did (or tried to do) , they've changed their tune a lot since then and have been pretty solid allies in the last few years. I know a lot of people still harbour ill will as a result of their past actions, but it's only fair to point out they DID see the error of their ways (even if it was forced upon them).


I'm just wondering what the chances are of this Common Sense law actually being passed, signed, sealed, delivered before the writ is dropped. pretty good. I would guess somewhere about may'ish. Anything can happen and the opposition can still play a delay game, but still looks positive.


It would be nice to have the carrot to chew on awhile before the stick gets flung out in front again.
Well - the problem is a lot of people told the gov't they didn't think the bill was a good idea. It bumped it a little on their priortiy list. The NFA has all but said we shouldn't vote cpc. If we want things like this to go thru we have to say that we want things like this to go thru :) Doesn't mean we can't say 'now lets talk about what ELSE we want'. But there you go. I'm pretty sure we'll see it go thru before the election, barring disaster. The shooting at the parliament delayed it a little but it seems to be back on track.

Doug_M
02-25-2015, 12:31 PM
Not so much any particular organization, but the conduct of Canadian gun culture as a whole. Generally speaking, the attitude that not making waves will mean that everyone will leave us alone... that strong advocacy and taking a hard line just draws attention to us and brings ruin. As I said, I am all for the conversation where we discuss new ideas. Political change follows (slowly) social change. If the NFA bungled up a good idea, what are your suggestions for getting things back on track? Civil Advantage does a nice job, but it's not something everyone can participate in. We need a way of demonstrating that there's a large community of us out there, not just a few dedicated people with youtube channels.

In bold...I don't think that attitude is very pervasive among gun owners anymore, except perhaps the much older and socially disconnected. Political change does indeed follow social change. I think Harbl is ahead of a lot of us (me at least) on this. There are two avenues to pursue (at least). One is informing the general public (social media, letters to news outlets, non-inflammatory but direct and accurate comments on news articles, open events to the public) the other is fostering the next generation (enter Harbl). The NFA was on this track and can easily get back on it by returning to the simple notion that we need the general public's support (social change) and acting accordingly. Personally I do a lot of the general public stuff as outlined in the parenthesis but I plan on tackling the fostering stuff by getting my local gun club to host an introductory/fun range day for youth. Currently my club does zero with youth.


Kind of like the general tone of this thread :P

No, I don't think so. Your voice may seem alone or few in this thread, but we are having a productive and civil discussion and your views are welcome. In fact the more we talk the more we seem to have in common.



The lack of strategy/direction was the failed strategy. If politics was a non-starter, then the battle had to be won with citizens. How is it I was 16 or 17 years old before I knew you could even own a gun in this country? Sure I grew up in the GTA where shooting clays on a weekend isn't exactly a normal family/friend activity, but that's where the gains needed (and still need) to be made....but nothing. How do I propose we reach these people? The obvious answer on the individual level is take people shooting, not shying away from the subject matter and don't hide your hobby or lifestyle. The grounds are fertile for change with the young generation coming up that love shoot 'em up games like call of duty, are facing a rude awakening when they come to grasp the size and scope of government/taxation, and are generally more open to alternative lifestyles - certainly not all of them, but there are new angles we can pursue and perspective factors that work in our favour that have been less present than before.

I didn't mean there were no strategies, but rather that the strategies that were there are not responsible for the RCMP's current powers today. You were 16 or 17 before you knew you could even own a gun in this country because of decades of Liberal social re-engineering of Canadian society. It is thanks to the Internet largely, that that is being countered. Anyone can google today and so the lies are cracking. I agree with all the rest you've said there.


As for orgs...I still for the life of me can't figure out why I've had more NRA membership brochures fall out of gun boxes than CSSA or NFA ones....I can only think of one time where I found a CSSA application stuffed into a rifle box. An organization is only as good as its members and it's hard to lay blame for such a failure at any particular person's feet...I guess that brings us back to the collective awakening you mentioned. I still just shake my head when I encounter gun owners who are unaware we even have gun advocacy organizations....not for their ignorance, but for our failures.

Yes I agree. Some online vendors I've purchased from have "donate to CSSA/NFA" thing when you check out, but that's about it. There should be a membership form in every box!


I 100% agree with you that the 858/Swiss prohibition seems to have been needed to get people to get off their asses ... myself included.

Even though I was an adult during C-68 I was asleep politically, despite having one of my own rifles (FAL) prohibited. It wasn't until I was much older that I got active. I don't know what changed (in me), I haven't figured it out. But I am certainly as guilty as many others.


Has the CSSA in large part not been pursuing the quiet and humble approach since the CPC was elected? Who do we attribute the progress to? An org? The collective efforts of gun owners across the country? It's hard to swallow the decades-long incremental change approach when the mechanisms to reverse everything on a whim remain in place. Bread tossed to me in a death camp brings me no comfort.

Quiet and humble, no. Quiet and "sshh, we don't want to tip off the CGC", yes. They are starting to move a bit towards more communication with their members (more in their e-news, a new section in Calibre magazine). But they aren't overly vocal with the social change, which is why we still need the NFA. The progess is from a combination as you suggest, I believe. As for the whim of a gov to toss everything, well that will ALWAYS be there no matter what unless there is a constitutional change. There will be no constitution change as the requirements to pass such are too challenging. What we have to do is make the social change so that the numbers of licensed owners grows so that an opposing gov would not want to rock the boat too much. We have already started down that path. Remember Wayne Easter at the Lib convention warning that their LGR cost them 60 rural seats when the Young Libs proposed "Australian style" gun control?


Continued support for the CPC teaches them they don't have to destroy the mechanisms for disarmament to get the firearms vote. It will be our undoing, as the law intended. I have been firm with my MP - I've retained membership in the party but the money stops until actual movement on the issues the firearms community has outlined clearly occurs. No more polished turds.

Some people think the CPC are trying the carrot and stick method with us. I say we do that to them. Reward good behaviour. Do not reward bad or neutral behaviour. Then they learn the more the give us the more we give them and eventually we have a mutually beneficial relationship. I made a small donation when they made the regulatory changes that prevents the RCMP from reclassifying anything no matter what they find 1 yr after initial class and I made a small donation when C-42 was announced (and continued to write them with suggestions to improve it). But I have not donated any more and won't until it has passed and they reverse the SA and 858 classifications. I'm a party member too and have joined the local EDA. While I haven't had the chance to attend a meeting yet, I've been in contact with the president and another fellow who is a strong advocate for reform (very much a repeal C-68 guy). My goal is to ensure our MP is on our side and not a "red Tory". Every gun owner should do this if they can.

soulchaser
02-25-2015, 12:39 PM
Well Foxer, the OFAH did provided templates and encouraged people to create their own personal LGR of who they sold what to after the national LGR was ended.

soulchaser
02-25-2015, 12:42 PM
The Kook was positioning herself to be some kind of expert in her own mind, and be the earpiece to all the orgs to be able to funnel whatever she wanted from the community. Unfortunately she was unreasonable and rancorous!

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120609034131/starwars/images/8/8c/Rancor-SWE.png

She tried, several times to get "expert status" on firearms from the courts.

She failed each time.

lone-wolf
02-25-2015, 12:57 PM
Sheldon is still on the page btw. Pretty sure he removed himself last night to avoid all the poing poing poing post notifications lol

Doug_M
02-25-2015, 01:00 PM
Sheldon is still on the page btw. Pretty sure he removed himself last night to avoid all the poing poing poing post notifications lol

There is a comment from him on someone else's post about Jerrold Lundgard (spelling?). Sheldon said that one of the previous admins yesterday (or early this morning) had tried to take over the page. They went from 13 admins to about 5 and now down to 3. There are a lot of people being banned or removing themselves from the group too, including prominent members or admins. For example, Ericka Clarke, who recently became the NWT director is no longer an admin and no longer a member of the group. Whether or not this happened as part of the FB page coup attempt remains to be seen.

kennymo
02-25-2015, 01:01 PM
Sheldon is still on the page btw. Pretty sure he removed himself last night to avoid all the poing poing poing post notifications lol

That was my thought. Taking a step back for a day or two until the utter chaos goes back to just unmanaged chaos...
I saw some rules and regulations type postings going on, giving me hope they might try to tame that thing down a bit...

kennymo
02-25-2015, 01:05 PM
There is a comment from him on someone else's post about Jerrold Lundgard (spelling?). Sheldon said that one of the previous admins yesterday (or early this morning) had tried to take over the page. They went from 13 admins to about 5 and now down to 3. There are a lot of people being banned or removing themselves from the group too, including prominent members or admins. For example, Ericka Clarke, who recently became the NWT director is no longer an admin and no longer a member of the group. Whether or not this happened as part of the FB page coup attempt remains to be seen.

I thought Ericka removed herself as an admin a few weeks back due to the whole Libertarian bit? (By which I'm referring to the constant harassment by a handful of Libertarian party members) I could be mistaken...

Jay
02-25-2015, 01:05 PM
...

Foxer
02-25-2015, 01:08 PM
Well Foxer, the OFAH did provided templates and encouraged people to create their own personal LGR of who they sold what to after the national LGR was ended.

Yeah, but that's not necessarily a horrible idea and it is a HECK of a lot different than letting a gov't agency do it. The police won't have access to your personal records.

And they did come out in strong vocal support of firearms owners rights not long ago. I'm not saying they're perfect, but it is worth noting that they did change their attitude from the days of that horrible letter.

soulchaser
02-25-2015, 01:08 PM
There is a comment from him on someone else's post about Jerrold Lundgard (spelling?). Sheldon said that one of the previous admins yesterday (or early this morning) had tried to take over the page. They went from 13 admins to about 5 and now down to 3. There are a lot of people being banned or removing themselves from the group too, including prominent members or admins. For example, Ericka Clarke, who recently became the NWT director is no longer an admin and no longer a member of the group. Whether or not this happened as part of the FB page coup attempt remains to be seen.

Trying to form a useless splinter group like the CFI did when people got their asses thrown out of CSSA maybe?

Canada_Phil
02-25-2015, 01:09 PM
Love the facebook post. What a puffed up prima donna. Gets banned (ok, on facebook, so whatever) by the people he's supposed to be representing the org to.

And his fanboys cheer him on for Doin Somthin Right and encourage more of it... Yes...you rock... go and make yourself even more irrelevant to the cause, you big bad alpha bro.... It's like reading the FB of some hot young drama queen that all the guys just want to bang...


what an implosion of mass stupid.

LOL-dee-LOL-LOL !!
:)

DeathSpok
02-25-2015, 01:09 PM
... FB page coup attempt ....

/facepalm


Blech! Reminds me of "guild" takeovers in online gaming...

LOL

soulchaser
02-25-2015, 01:10 PM
Yeah, but that's not necessarily a horrible idea and it is a HECK of a lot different than letting a gov't agency do it. The police won't have access to your personal records.

And they did come out in strong vocal support of firearms owners rights not long ago. I'm not saying they're perfect, but it is worth noting that they did change their attitude from the days of that horrible letter.

I'll grant you they have said SOME positive things in the last few years, but I personally still do not trust them.

lone-wolf
02-25-2015, 01:28 PM
There is a comment from him on someone else's post about Jerrold Lundgard (spelling?). Sheldon said that one of the previous admins yesterday (or early this morning) had tried to take over the page. They went from 13 admins to about 5 and now down to 3. There are a lot of people being banned or removing themselves from the group too, including prominent members or admins. For example, Ericka Clarke, who recently became the NWT director is no longer an admin and no longer a member of the group. Whether or not this happened as part of the FB page coup attempt remains to be seen.

lol, I see that now. Crazy drama.

RangeBob
02-25-2015, 01:45 PM
The trouble with merging the two orgs
is one org would fire the staff from the other.

RangeBob
02-25-2015, 01:51 PM
How is it I was 16 or 17 years old before I knew you could even own a gun in this country?
Canadian gun owners are instructed to hide.
Instructed to hide their gun ownership from their neighbours by the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.
Instructed to hide due to fear of Transport violations.

And of course, by friends and family who don't want to discuss 'fun with guns' at the dinner table because some relative will bring up a mass shooting, during dinner.

I can't recall seeing anyone 'going out to the range' or 'going hunting' on any major network television station this year. Lots of murder on television though.


_________
Constable Couturier also expressed concern that by virtue of their firearms being used on a video disseminated over the internet the applicants had exposed themselves to an increased risk of a home invasion.
-- http://canlii.ca/t/1z68n

DeathSpok
02-25-2015, 01:55 PM
is one org would fire the staff from the other.

Yeah, but you have to consider, is the purpose of the organisation to:

a) advocate on behalf of legal gun owners in Canada, or

b) to provide gainful employment?

Sure, it would suck to have to lay off a bunch of people, but that shouldn't really be a consideration when deciding whether or not a merger of the organisations would benefit those they serve to represent.

kennymo
02-25-2015, 01:59 PM
Canadian gun owners are instructed to hide.
Instructed to hide their gun ownership from their neighbours by the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.
Instructed to hide due to fear of Transport violations.

And of course, by friends and family who don't want to discuss 'fun with guns' at the dinner table because some relative will bring up a mass shooting, during dinner.

I can't recall seeing anyone 'going out to the range' or 'going hunting' on any major network television station this year. Lots of murder on television though.

Duck Dynasty, Swamp People, Appalachian Outlaws....not necessarily always the people we want representing us, but they are on TV shooting and hunting. I can't recall what the recent one about grizzly hunting was called....
The Pawn Stars (both US and English) aren't afraid of the gun range either....

RangeBob
02-25-2015, 02:12 PM
Duck Dynasty, Swamp People, Appalachian Outlaws....
Yes of course.
And WildTV's 'Canada In The Rough', and just about anything about Alaska, too.
Although the last Home Buyer's Alaska kinda show I saw spent most of the time watching the wife's being upset at hunting trophies rather than the husband who wanted them included in the home purchase price.

By 'Major Television Networks' I meant: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CBC, CTV, Global.

DeathSpok
02-25-2015, 02:13 PM
Duck Dynasty, Swamp People, Appalachian Outlaws....not necessarily always the people we want representing us, but they are on TV shooting and hunting. I can't recall what the recent one about grizzly hunting was called....
The Pawn Stars (both US and English) aren't afraid of the gun range either....

Don't forget Sons of Guns, although now that I think of it, didn't the show get pulled after some kind of legal problems by the owner?

DeathSpok
02-25-2015, 02:22 PM
And isn't there a competition-type show called "Top Shot" that was on one of the cable channels?

Foxer
02-25-2015, 02:23 PM
I'll grant you they have said SOME positive things in the last few years, but I personally still do not trust them.
And that's fair, and i'm not advocating that anyone does. It just seems only fair to point out that after that horrible performance on their part there were changes and people should consider that when arriving at their conclusions. Just to be balanced so to speak.

kennymo
02-25-2015, 02:26 PM
Yes of course.
And WildTV's 'Canada In The Rough', and just about anything about Alaska, too.
Although the last Home Buyer's Alaska kinda show I saw spent most of the time watching the wife's being upset at hunting trophies rather than the husband who wanted them included in the home purchase price.

By 'Major Television Networks' I meant: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CBC, CTV, Global.

I'd thought that some of them were cropping up in re runs on some of the larger networks. But I could be mistaken. Canada in the Rough aside, I tend to change the channel...

Jay
02-25-2015, 02:31 PM
...

lone-wolf
02-25-2015, 02:43 PM
Top shot - the drama was great.

CivilAdvantage
02-25-2015, 04:07 PM
Awwwww!!!! You suck. I mean sure, I'd say exactly the same thing and can think of a whole bunch of business reasons why it would be a bad move for you, and would hardly counsel anyone to jump into an org in the middle of what appears to be a good ole palace coup, but those facts in no way mitigate the level of suck involved here! :)


What if we offered you bacon? Taaasty bacon!

Fine then.

Foxer
02-25-2015, 04:09 PM
Fine then.

HA!!! - i knew the bacon would get you :) Unfortunately i ate most of it while waiting for your reply - BUT I CAN GET MORE! So we're good, right? :)