PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Gun Lobby - where are you? (Crickets)



SIR VEYOR
06-21-2016, 07:32 PM
Ok, so with the current media blitz on guns, gun control, AR-15, Assualt\patrol carbine, etc., the public conversation is very lopsided. And the massive middle will follow what is drummed into them for long enough without a dissenting voice.

What or who is actually making an effort to communicate with the media? In this media blitz, some org should be rising to the top just from the reporter googling, but nothing. A large CBC discussion reference Rods' training company, but not the CCFR. Although a transcript posted here shows the reverse.

CSSA - Not their thing, they've done a lot on the legislative front which is their thing. Don't really expect them to light up the media world.

NFA - Epic apocalyptic meltdown of an org and lots of asshattery. Decided to try to out redneck even the worst rednecks in the States. Nobody has crushed their phone or the media can always rely on them for something sensational and over the top to help prove their articles slant is the "normal and accepted" view.

CALIBRE - They're basically a magazine. Talking to the media is in their skillset, but what media calls up another media source for comments? Not often.

CFFR - Apparently more just an information source for Youtube videos and peer to peer conversions. Kinda the "new" NFA but media shy. Just more hip thanks to using technology better than the NFA! But seems to be new boys club acting lots like old boys club. Social media, even looking on their website feeds are anemic at best. Yes, some great reasoned information and great reference point for educating from ignorance on up. So far, asshattery free.

Numerous other facebook firearm orgs ad niche orgs like wildlife groups who are not able to get traction in this whirlwind.

In such a feeding frenzy as this, why is no org stepping up and speaking? (NFA, please stay seated) Free publicity, membership growth and likely becoming the main contact for quotes by an ever growing media pool as they see good material coming from asking you a few questions.

This is a golden brand establishing tsunami event for you to get maximum exposure for minimal effort. And yet....

Canadian Gun Lobby\Orgs your underwhelming performance is so disappointing for everyone but Wendy and the gun control enthusiasts...

TJSpeller
06-21-2016, 08:16 PM
Actually, I believe Tony Bernardo has been talking to the media. Saw one interview with him and heard about another.

x0ra
06-21-2016, 11:28 PM
Don't forget Quebec's FTQ... [sic]

x0ra
06-21-2016, 11:31 PM
Canadian Gun Lobby\Orgs your underwhelming performance is so disappointing for everyone but Wendy and the gun control enthusiasts...
I'm gonna repeat myself, but what do you want ? A march to Parliament hill, rifles on the shoulder and handguns holstered ?

This is Canada, for the next gun grab, we're probably hand them over, be sorry to own firearms to begin with, and thanks the LEO for their good job making Canada safer.

edit: ... and pride ourselves to be good first-class "law-abiding" citizens.

x0ra
06-21-2016, 11:39 PM
Btw, this is a no-win situation. I've tried with the family. So far, I've been blocked by two of them because I'm considered mentally ill to own firearms. [and yes, they're yoga-pants lieberals]

And don't get me started about pissy journalist who claims have gotten PTSD after firing an AR... *These* are the people who are being listened to.

Doug_M
06-22-2016, 04:56 AM
Actually, I believe Tony Bernardo has been talking to the media. Saw one interview with him and heard about another.

Yup, Tony was on CBC's As it Happens and spoke to Carol Off (spelling?) Shut her fear mongering down pretty good.

awndray
06-22-2016, 05:23 AM
"The gun lobby" knows better than to take on the media. There's no sense in bringing facts to a table where they are not wanted. Instead, the battle is fought where it matters - at the legislative level. While public perception is important, the fact remains people don't want to hear it. Normalizing firearm ownership in Canada won't happen in the newspapers or on the 6'oclock news. It'll happen at home first. Besides, there is still too much disagreement amongst gun owners themselves.

TrevorF
06-22-2016, 05:39 AM
Keep in mind the CCFR hasn't even been around for a year yet. It take time to grow and make inroads.

Doug_M
06-22-2016, 06:55 AM
Keep in mind the CCFR hasn't even been around for a year yet. It take time to grow and make inroads.

Meh, CCFR is nothing but a bunch of slackers making podcasts rather than working for our rights....

Foxer
06-22-2016, 08:42 AM
Well, the problem is that we don't currently actually have a 'gun lobby' group per se.

The cssa is not really a lobby group. They don't actually do much at all on the legislative front - they kind of SAY they do and whenever anything goes right they CLAIM to have been a 'big part', but really they're extremely small potatoes and they're not really set up to be 'that group'. They mostly work with ranges and clubs, and they do very very important work there and they're a good org to have. But - they are not interested in leading the "fight" for gun rights at all. They chip in, they do do media events and tony has been on tv and media many many times and has been good at it (to be honest, for a while that really kind of was their 'thing'). But it is NOT their focus, it's not how they make money, and they really aren't that interested in anyone other than their members. They're a great org - they're just not the 'voice of gun owners' org you're looking for.

The NFA is toxic death. They're not worth talking about any more.

Calibre - as was said it's a magazine for heaven's sake, not an advocacy group. We can be thankful for the efforts they DO put in and i would say those efforts represent going far above and beyond the call of duty for a mag, but they're clearly not in any way any kind of 'professional rights advocates' or the like.

CFFR - they're not trying to be an advocacy group either. Their goal is long term incremental public education and information and this cannot be stressed enough - THAT IS HUGELY MASSIVELY IMPORTANT. That is EVERY bit as important as advocacy work. But - it's basically the exact opposite of advocacy work and their job is very different than what we'd expect from a firearms advocacy group. I notice rod was in the papers and being interviewed and did well, but i don't think that'll be their focus for a while. In the meantime - they will take a few years to find their real footing and have an effect, unless they decide to pay someone full time for their efforts to work on it every day.

So where does that leave us?

When you look at the NRA in the states, you see the kind of effective "firearms advocacy group" that you're talking about and that we really desperately need. A group that brings gun owners together and reaches out and works with non members as much as members. THey focus on political pressure, legislative stuff, and organizing the 'fight' for the entire community as their PRIMARY reason for existence. It's their number one job. They've got the respect of gun owners, even those who think that sometimes they're a little on the radical side. And when they call for action, gun owners respond in large numbers whether they are members or not.

We don't really have that in any form in Canada. No org is interested in reaching out seriously beyond it's membership, and not one is focused on NOR structured to be 'that' org.

And the sad truth is we may not ever have one - our firearms community tends to be very fractured, anyone who tries to get anything going generally faces mountains of criticism from the community no matter what they do, and there is a large segment of our active community who demands nothing less than absolutely huge results tomorrow - otherwise screw everybody. How many times have we seen it? "I WANT THIS LAW PASSED TOMORROW". Ok, well that's not really possible, you see there's a process as to how laws are passed in Canada and "I DON"T CARE - THEY COULD DO IT IF THEY WANTED". Well.. no, they couldn't. See, this is how.. "WELL THEN SCREW THEM AND THEIR PIXIE DUST - LETS ABANDON THEM AND LET THE LIBERALS IN TO TEACH THEM A LESSON". Oh god that's a bad idea - if we were to "NOOO COMPROMISE!!!!!"

It was this sort of thing that really destroyed the NFA - strong headed stubborn idiots who wouldn't give an inch - and i'm not just talking about the no compromise group but also the leadership at the time they were fighting with. Neither side was interested in the best interests of gun owners, neither group was laying out a real plan, and both sides were acting in deplorable ways to 'one up' the other and the whole org fell apart.

I'm not sure how we beat that. Right now we seem to have 3 types of gun owners - 1) the type who demand everything now and aren't interested in the slightest in forming a reasonable and achievable plan and who simply slag the hell out of anything and lie constantly because they're all about posturing. We've even got a few 'agent provocateurs' in that group. 2) the type who want nothing to do with the crazy gun rights people and sit on the sidelines basically hoping things go well, and do a little bit here and there maybe but are just turned off by the whole thing OR feel that nothing will ever achieve results, and 3) those who want to do the work and want to form a reasonable plan that can be achieved. But they are in the minority and generally anything they do is undermined by the first group.

Fact is that the NRA works on long term planning and achievable goals, and has had so much success doing so that now they are a major political powerhouse and can throw their weight around quite a bit. If we did the same, with a real advocacy org behind us driving and focusing the efforts, we would achieve similar results. But i'm not sure how to get there from here.

TJSpeller
06-22-2016, 08:52 AM
I think the CSSA deserves more credit than you are giving them Foxer.

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/5th-annual-outdoor-caucus-parliamentary-day-at-the-range-a-huge-success/

And their epic series of ads in TheHill when the LGR battle was being waged.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/04/HillTimes_beef1.jpg (one of many excellent ads)

Foxer
06-22-2016, 08:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1092292951&feature=iv&src_vid=K1G6MRKVbHc&v=AKQCO2CqU4Y

and


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1G6MRKVbHc

CivilAdvantage
06-22-2016, 09:06 AM
In the past week I have done 4 interviews:
CKNW with Lynda Steele
CBC Radio 1
CHML Hamilton Ont with Scott Thompson (brutal)
Hill Times Lobby Monitor with Shruti Shakar

and a fifth in 30 minutes with Vice news in Ottawa. This is not including the public service announcement that over 100,000 unique viewers watched and were directed to the website designed by and sponsored by CCFR members for the entire firearm community to benefit from. The first outreach of it's kind in Canadian firearms activism history. I wouldn't exactly call that crickets. Who's done more? In 7 months no less.

we could do a better job of updating our main website because not everybody is in our Facebook group where this all gets posted but we will work on that after our AGM.

Foxer
06-22-2016, 09:08 AM
I think the CSSA deserves more credit than you are giving them Foxer.

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/5th-annual-outdoor-caucus-parliamentary-day-at-the-range-a-huge-success/

And their epic series of ads in TheHill when the LGR battle was being waged.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/04/HillTimes_beef1.jpg (one of many excellent ads)

No, they don't :)

Remember first off - because it's easy to forget when you're talking about things that orgs aren't doing - that I'm very supportive of what they DO do and i constantly take the time to note they are a worthy org and should be supported.

But - Holding an ANNUAL event and doing a FEW interviews a year, and paying for the OCCASIONAL ad is NOT the same as real advocacy work. It just isn't.

As noted by John Oliver in the videos i just posted, the NRA wins with a small number of people because they are RELENTLESS - as he puts it they were working on it two weeks ago, they're working on it today, and htey'll be working on it two weeks from now. 24/7, 365, the NRA is out there doing this work and organizing gun owners INCLUDING non members.

The BCWF has run political ads during elections against gun control as well, and has spoken out and talked to the gov'ts about guns - and that's great but they are NOT A GUN ADVOCACY group. They're a Wildlife federation and that's where most of their energy is.

The CSSA occasionally likes to present themselves as a firearms group similar to the NRA but they're not even in the ballpark, and their work on the legislative front is pretty minor and of questionable results in a few cases. WHICH IS OK - that's not what they're structured to do, it's certainly not where their main focus is, and the work they ARE doing is important! Just like the BCWF. And it's great that they take the time and energy to do a little bit to fill that gap, and good on them. It makes a difference. But - that's doesn't change the fact that we're left without an org that IS focused on that job.

Foxer
06-22-2016, 09:13 AM
In the past week I have done 4 interviews:
CKNW with Lynda Steele
CBC Radio 1
CHML Hamilton Ont with Scott Thompson (brutal)
Hill Times Lobby Monitor with Shruti Shakar

and a fifth in 30 minutes with Vice news in Ottawa. This is not including the public service announcement that over 100,000 unique viewers watched and were directed to the website designed by and sponsored by CCFR members for the entire firearm community to benefit from. The first outreach of it's kind in Canadian firearms activism history. I wouldn't exactly call that crickets. Who's done more? In 7 months no less.

we could do a better job of updating our main website because not everybody is in our Facebook group where this all gets posted but we will work on that after our AGM.

WHAT?!!?!? You've had SEVEN WHOLE MONTHS and you're NOT yet a super-smooth hyper effective massive mega org achieving massive results with ALL it's organizational and technical issues worked out!?!?!?

That's it - i withdraw my support :)

I'm happy with where that org is going, and it will take time. But - even when it's fully developed it's goal is NOT to be an 'NRA' style org, it's goal is to spread truthful information and education to reduce the public support for stupid gun control laws, and that is HYPER valuable but it's NOT the same thing.

blacksmithden
06-22-2016, 09:55 AM
I got on our local talk radio station last week. It was like trying to herd cats. Very stupid cats. 630 CHED here in Edmonton has gone complete left wing retard. God I miss Charles Adler.

Doug_M
06-22-2016, 10:46 AM
John Oliver is funny, but he has an agenda and it is very clear in those videos. The CDC was banned from researching "gun violence" because they were found to be starting with a result first and trying to work backwards to show a cause. If they want to treat "gun violence" like a public health problem then they have to treat ALL violence like a public health problem and they aren't. John mentions the "universal background checks" poll too and no one who shares his agenda will tell you that the poll did not explain what is in place now and just exactly what "universal background checks" really means.

But like Foxer said, he's right on why the NRA are effective. But there is more to it than that. The 2nd Amendment places a massive part in the NRA having support from non-members. Despite what the media would have us believe, a large swath of Americans both Republican AND Democrat believe in the 2nd Amendment and the right to own and carry arms for self-defence. CLW.45 is always harping on this and he is right. The conversation in Canada is about hunting and sport shooting while being safe and responsible citizens that are less likely to kill you than non-gun owners. Americans almost exclusively talk about self-defence.

Foxer
06-22-2016, 10:47 AM
I got on our local talk radio station last week. It was like trying to herd cats. Very stupid cats. 630 CHED here in Edmonton has gone complete left wing retard. God I miss Charles Adler.

Yeah. Adler was great.

Well this is why the whole public education thing is critical. There's a lot of disinformation out there, we need information to counter that.

But - while that is a critical and vital part of our fight it is not the same as an advocacy group like the NRA (tho in the states the NRA actually does incorporate a fair bit of public education as well).

harbl_the_cat
06-22-2016, 10:48 AM
"The gun lobby" knows better than to take on the media. There's no sense in bringing facts to a table where they are not wanted. Instead, the battle is fought where it matters - at the legislative level. While public perception is important, the fact remains people don't want to hear it. Normalizing firearm ownership in Canada won't happen in the newspapers or on the 6'oclock news. It'll happen at home first. Besides, there is still too much disagreement amongst gun owners themselves.

I don't think the battle is at the legislative level. If anything, I think it's a waste of time and effort getting anything done in Ottawa.

The REAL battle is at the local, grassroots level.

It's by individual, enthusiastic gun owners getting other individual, non-gun owners exposed to gun ownership.

Starting up programs, taking strangers shooting, talking about guns with coworkers, taking to social media and sharing stories of our escapades with guns.

If each of us can't do those simple things, it's pointless trying to lobby for any other solution.

I have a gay friend who went from being hardcore in the closet back in the 2000's to a self-admitted hardcore loud and proud queer. (Heck, among the LQBT community, "queer" isn't even an insult anymore).

We have to stop looking to big institutions and Stephen Harper's to fight our fight for us, and each of us do everything we can to individually change the culture.

Incidentally, my gay friend shared that with me that that's how the LGBT community was successful. Individual gays acting at grassroots level towards achieving a loosely defined goal around a common value.

We can learn a lot in the "gun lobby" from the LGBT community.

Foxer
06-22-2016, 12:25 PM
I don't think the battle is at the legislative level. If anything, I think it's a waste of time and effort getting anything done in Ottawa.

The REAL battle is at the local, grassroots level.

It's by individual, enthusiastic gun owners getting other individual, non-gun owners exposed to gun ownership.

Starting up programs, taking strangers shooting, talking about guns with coworkers, taking to social media and sharing stories of our escapades with guns.

If each of us can't do those simple things, it's pointless trying to lobby for any other solution.

I have a gay friend who went from being hardcore in the closet back in the 2000's to a self-admitted hardcore loud and proud queer. (Heck, among the LQBT community, "queer" isn't even an insult anymore).

We have to stop looking to big institutions and Stephen Harper's to fight our fight for us, and each of us do everything we can to individually change the culture.

Incidentally, my gay friend shared that with me that that's how the LGBT community was successful. Individual gays acting at grassroots level towards achieving a loosely defined goal around a common value.

We can learn a lot in the "gun lobby" from the LGBT community.

Well you're not entirely wrong. The legislative battle IS without a doubt a major and important battle, but it cannot succeed unless we have already done as you said. Politics is driven by public opinion. Therefore as you say the primary battle IS to win over more and more of the public till they either support us or at least have a neutral stance (which means there's no value to the anti's to pass new anti gun stuff).

But at the end of the day they go hand in hand. Either one is kind of meaningless without the other. We can have all kinds of public support but still lose our rights in a legislative change after a mass shooting. Likewise, we can change all the laws we want but 1 - that's 10 times harder without public support and 2 - if we don't have public support, the libs will just change it right back to please their base.

harbl_the_cat
06-22-2016, 12:36 PM
Well you're not entirely wrong. The legislative battle IS without a doubt a major and important battle, but it cannot succeed unless we have already done as you said. Politics is driven by public opinion. Therefore as you say the primary battle IS to win over more and more of the public till they either support us or at least have a neutral stance (which means there's no value to the anti's to pass new anti gun stuff).

But at the end of the day they go hand in hand. Either one is kind of meaningless without the other. We can have all kinds of public support but still lose our rights in a legislative change after a mass shooting. Likewise, we can change all the laws we want but 1 - that's 10 times harder without public support and 2 - if we don't have public support, the libs will just change it right back to please their base.

Personally, I'm so disheartened by the outcome of the Federal legislative struggle I want to allocate absolutely no energy towards it.

I would much rather get hundreds or thousands of people excited about owning guns than donate a penny to the CPC.

The strategy of the 1990's gun grabbers was to use legislation to bring about social engineering that would bleed the gun community to death.

I feel the strategy of the 2010 gun community should be to reverse the past 20 years of social engineering such that future legislators know it will be impossible to pull off a repeat of the 1990's without broad based resistance.

In particular, though, we have use their own weapons against them. Push hard to change PERCEIVED image of the gun community from one of angry, old, white, conservative men from the countryside to one that is simultaneously inclusive of country rednecks AND hip, young, energetic, urban people of diverse ethnic and lifestyle backgrounds.

My perspective after 10 years active in the gun community more so than most is this is probably the greatest challenges we face that risks undermining any legislative action on the issue of gun rights.

By what I've seen, things are changing. I see more women, minorities, and youth and young adults shooting today than I did 10 years ago when I got actively involved.

Part of that challenge I see is that there is a leadership gap - with the most influential positions of leadership within the community being occupied with an iron fist by many of the hardcore "old boys" from the 1990's who survived the C-68 cull of the community, but ended up becoming embittered and jaded to the point of nihilism with respect to the gun community. They're great guys who know a lot - but so many have a sense of self-loathing fear after the trauma they experienced under the Chretien Liberals and carry a cynical pessimism that is discouraging and infectious.

I'm not advocating a leadership cull of such people, but rather am working towards empowering the young or the naive (older folks who didn't partake in the political bloodbath of the 1990's) to get involved in taking positions of leadership within the firearms community to help diversify and strengthen local organizations to become more influential in their communities - both the gun owning and non-gun owning community.

My big concern is that the hardcore old boys did so much to carry the torch through the dark years that they might not know how (or be willing) to pass it on.

If they can't and if no one steps up after them - the gun community is toast.

Foxer
06-22-2016, 12:40 PM
Personally, I'm so disheartened by the outcome of the Federal legislative struggle I want to allocate absolutely no energy towards it.

I would much rather get hundreds or thousands of people excited about owning guns than donate a penny to the CPC.

well that's not very smart, is it. If we're not playing the game there, then we're leaving it to the liberals. Do you think the libs are going to respect your 'disheartened' viewpoint?

And you're not disheartened, we both know why you don't want to think federally right now. :) so spare me the crocodile tears.

As to the previous fight, you totally don't get what happened. They used LEGISLATIVE CHANGE to create social change that they couldn't otherwise. That was their strategy. Reversing that would mean using legislative Change to create POSITIVE social changes.

Nothing happens without legislative changes at some point

DanN
06-22-2016, 12:45 PM
I would much rather get hundreds or thousands of people excited about owning guns than donate a penny to the CPC.

Do that. At this stage of the game spreading the sport as far and wide as we can is the most important thing we can do (and realistically, the only we can hope to accomplish) for the next 4 years. Take that money you'd have donated to the CPC and put it into taking folks out for range days. Some of those people will hopefully go on to become gun owners and then consider donating to the CPC themselves. Consider it an investment.

harbl_the_cat
06-22-2016, 01:09 PM
well that's not very smart, is it. If we're not playing the game there, then we're leaving it to the liberals. Do you think the libs are going to respect your 'disheartened' viewpoint?

And you're not disheartened, we both know why you don't want to think federally right now. :) so spare me the crocodile tears.

As to the previous fight, you totally don't get what happened. They used LEGISLATIVE CHANGE to create social change that they couldn't otherwise. That was their strategy. Reversing that would mean using legislative Change to create POSITIVE social changes.

Nothing happens without legislative changes at some point

No crocodile tears here - just an objective statement of truth.

I think the past legislative fights created as much fruit as they could, in particular the Turf Mark Holland initiative of the 2011 election that sent a VERY powerful message to the Liberals.

Polarize the gun community and it WILL draw blood.

They will never admit it, but Mark Holland was reelected in 2015 and there is no reason for the spineless liberals not to know to leave the sleeping dog of the gun community alone. In particular, since there are so many other portfolios (Western Alienation and Separation chiefly among them) just waiting to explode in their faces.

Moreover, the CPC knows that they can't win in 2019 if they can't out-liberal the Liberals, so supporting the CPC at this stage is utterly meaningless.

The thing that infuriates me about Federal politics is how the Conservatives take it as a given that they have Alberta's support.

Quite frankly, Canadian Toryism is fundamentally incompatible with Alberta's interests but Albertans supported the Tories because of the dynamism of Stephen Harper. Going forward, unless they can prove that they deserve it, I would not at all mind seeing the Federal Tory's Alberta base as fractured as the right is Provincially in Alberta - even if it means permanent Trudeau Liberal majorities for the foreseeable future.

The thing about Legislative change is unless the laws change to deal with reality, the laws become powerless.

Granted, the Harper Conservatives did a great job in rendering the laws powerless their term in office - I'm not convinced there is urgency right now to engage at the Federal political level and I'm deeply skeptical that there will ever be anyone who can repeat what Stephen Harper did his term in office.

That said, instead of wasting time, energy, or money in the Federal political arena, I believe we need more gays, women, Syrian refugees, and University students to fall in love with gun ownership and be the public faces of the gun community that the crooks in Ottawa will be sending their armed goons to harass and imprison if they try to legislate gun ownership to death.

speedloader
06-22-2016, 01:12 PM
if you look at the US the huge difference is this
most of the republican congress are us they are gun owners they live the reality
and don't believe made up garbage about gun owners or firearms and are NRA members

so they don't get fear mongered into voting for stupid feel good laws that don't stop criminals
and cause more red tape for owners and restrict their freedom

so we can't even begin to compare the two countries
mind you the no fly Law with thirty days to correct they are going to vote on soon
is a good step against the wack jobs we are afraid to call terrorists
So the NRA has a pretty easy time keeping things free with the whole goverment being
owners our orgs have little to no chance without us getting all together period
because our law makers are scared of everything

harbl_the_cat
06-22-2016, 01:22 PM
Do that. At this stage of the game spreading the sport as far and wide as we can is the most important thing we can do (and realistically, the only we can hope to accomplish) for the next 4 years. Take that money you'd have donated to the CPC and put it into taking folks out for range days. Some of those people will hopefully go on to become gun owners and then consider donating to the CPC themselves. Consider it an investment.

That's why I do this and roll my eyes every-time I get an e-mail from the CPC asking for $250:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwkVZUuIJaQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ux5ejPctbY

Doug_M
06-22-2016, 02:58 PM
I would much rather get hundreds or thousands of people excited about owning guns than donate a penny to the CPC.

Well we should all play to our strengths and this certainly is where you shine. So go forth and...uh...multiply!

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Foxer
06-22-2016, 03:22 PM
No crocodile tears here - just an objective statement of truth.

I think the past legislative fights created as much fruit as they could, in particular the Turf Mark Holland initiative of the 2011 election that sent a VERY powerful message to the Liberals.

Polarize the gun community and it WILL draw blood.

They will never admit it, but Mark Holland was reelected in 2015 and there is no reason for the spineless liberals not to know to leave the sleeping dog of the gun community alone. In particular, since there are so many other portfolios (Western Alienation and Separation chiefly among them) just waiting to explode in their faces.

Moreover, the CPC knows that they can't win in 2019 if they can't out-liberal the Liberals, so supporting the CPC at this stage is utterly meaningless.

The thing that infuriates me about Federal politics is how the Conservatives take it as a given that they have Alberta's support.

Quite frankly, Canadian Toryism is fundamentally incompatible with Alberta's interests but Albertans supported the Tories because of the dynamism of Stephen Harper. Going forward, unless they can prove that they deserve it, I would not at all mind seeing the Federal Tory's Alberta base as fractured as the right is Provincially in Alberta - even if it means permanent Trudeau Liberal majorities for the foreseeable future.

The thing about Legislative change is unless the laws change to deal with reality, the laws become powerless.

Granted, the Harper Conservatives did a great job in rendering the laws powerless their term in office - I'm not convinced there is urgency right now to engage at the Federal political level and I'm deeply skeptical that there will ever be anyone who can repeat what Stephen Harper did his term in office.

That said, instead of wasting time, energy, or money in the Federal political arena, I believe we need more gays, women, Syrian refugees, and University students to fall in love with gun ownership and be the public faces of the gun community that the crooks in Ottawa will be sending their armed goons to harass and imprison if they try to legislate gun ownership to death.
Well most of that is pure bullcrap - especially the crocodile tears part :)

And the CPC has rejected out liberal-ing the liberals and that would have been a failed strategy anyway. Again - making stuff up with no research.

But hey - don't let truth or facts hold you back big guy :)

Gunexpert007
06-22-2016, 08:18 PM
Every Canadian Firearm Owner is the Canadian Gun Lobby . Every time someone talks or writes to their MP , contacts the media to correct a story mistake , introduces someone new to the sport , sponsors a community event , etc ; is acting as part of the Gun Lobby......there is power in numbers , and most MPs certainly know that we are out there....

duy
06-22-2016, 09:16 PM
The CCFR is definitely on to something. Educate the public first and get some ignorant Canadians on our side (when I say ignorant I mean about firearms and firearm laws in Canada). Try to talk to regular Canadians and I would say maybe 8 out of 10 will be pro gun control. Heck, even some people in the military are pro gun control. Once people start to understand how restrictive our laws are they'll be more understanding towards pro gun rights. That is a progressive step towards their goals.

DILLIGAF
06-22-2016, 09:25 PM
Some dudes voted Liberal at my unit, And they think im crazy for owning guns....

Foxer
06-22-2016, 10:06 PM
The CCFR is definitely on to something. Educate the public first and get some ignorant Canadians on our side (when I say ignorant I mean about firearms and firearm laws in Canada). Try to talk to regular Canadians and I would say maybe 8 out of 10 will be pro gun control. Heck, even some people in the military are pro gun control. Once people start to understand how restrictive our laws are they'll be more understanding towards pro gun rights. That is a progressive step towards their goals.
Yes, it's important and valuable, and we used to do it and haven't for a while.

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 05:20 AM
I'm gonna repeat myself, but what do you want ? A march to Parliament hill, rifles on the shoulder and handguns holstered ?


I just want a presence by an "official from a named group" in the media conversations that are only being answered for the most part by the "callers". Many of these articles, written and broadcast don't take callers, or are left to the randomness of whoever calls. So the odds of an NFA stlye/no-compromise response that way goes up.

If there's even read statements from an org, the no-compromise caller gets demonstrated to be a one-off further over than most of the shooting community. If not, then he's a one-off to the listeners representing the shooting community at large.

The media reports have been going on for a long time, with minimal response from any of our orgs. Is the recent uptick in the last couple of weeks of interviews coming from our orgs initiating anything, using their social media or just the media desperately looking for someone they can put there to say "fair and balanced, honest, trust us"?

If the public gets told 2+2=5 long enough, they'll believe it's 5 not 4.

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 05:25 AM
Actually, I believe Tony Bernardo has been talking to the media. Saw one interview with him and heard about another.


Yup, Tony was on CBC's As it Happens and spoke to Carol Off (spelling?) Shut her fear mongering down pretty good.

And this is what we need more of. Sensible, logical discourse. It won't change the minds of the confirmed, but there needs to be earworms of reasoned thought going out to the masses while they're being bombraded with it over the rest of their show. Someone talking calmy and rationally, while the other side screams and rants tends to last longer in the minds. Callers in, get put on if it seems like they're going to be passionate for one side or the other. Too easy to dismiss the one-offs again.

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 05:48 AM
In the past week I have done 4 interviews:
CKNW with Lynda Steele
CBC Radio 1
CHML Hamilton Ont with Scott Thompson (brutal)
Hill Times Lobby Monitor with Shruti Shakar

and a fifth in 30 minutes with Vice news in Ottawa. This is not including the public service announcement that over 100,000 unique viewers watched and were directed to the website designed by and sponsored by CCFR members for the entire firearm community to benefit from. The first outreach of it's kind in Canadian firearms activism history. I wouldn't exactly call that crickets. Who's done more? In 7 months no less.

we could do a better job of updating our main website because not everybody is in our Facebook group where this all gets posted but we will work on that after our AGM.


If someone gets steered to your sites "CCFR" and "gundebate.ca" then your education material can start to have an effect. But there is currently such a wave of discussion in more mainstream media sources, that it's swallowed up and the masses are lost. And outside of the last week, you've been crickets more than not.

How many of your interviews are from your members initiating the contact with the media? There's been one press release long ago, now since forgotten in the hectic newsies minds. Anybody finding you from outside of Facebook is not going to see a sense of activity. And there's no sense there to you sending out daily/weekly tweets or anything else for media attention. Put something out regularly that can be retweeted, posted by others, etc. Facebook, LinkedIn, twitter, and most other things live by retweeting. A regular posting methodology generates a following and takes advantage of the platforms. Even if you're just re-posting others stuff yourself.

If you want submissions for 100-1000 word articles, I'm sure you'll get swamped. Maybe even by other people than Harbl and Foxer.

Yes, you've accomplished a lot in a short time it seems. But it also looks like it's been very stagnant for the last few months. A lot of people are blocked from Facebook and\or Youtube while at work, so then they have to remember and then make time elsewhere. If there's more generally accessible content, then it gets viewed.

Petamocto
06-23-2016, 05:55 AM
Sir Veyor,

Your general thesis here is that the CCFR is not doing its job or caring about the needs of gun owners.

If nothing else, do you not realize the gravity of the fact that the actual President of the CCFR himself, Rod Giltaca, has personally replied to this thread?

The fact that he is that involved and cares that much should immediately defeat your argument that the CCFR is just a bunch of fat cats in the "old boys club" as you stated in your original post.

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 05:57 AM
Every Canadian Firearm Owner is the Canadian Gun Lobby . Every time someone talks or writes to their MP , contacts the media to correct a story mistake , introduces someone new to the sport , sponsors a community event , etc ; is acting as part of the Gun Lobby......there is power in numbers , and most MPs certainly know that we are out there....


The CCFR is definitely on to something. Educate the public first and get some ignorant Canadians on our side (when I say ignorant I mean about firearms and firearm laws in Canada). Try to talk to regular Canadians and I would say maybe 8 out of 10 will be pro gun control. Heck, even some people in the military are pro gun control. Once people start to understand how restrictive our laws are they'll be more understanding towards pro gun rights. That is a progressive step towards their goals.

Alright, so how about a list of the actually good sources of people to talk to? Give me a list that we can e-mail to the journalists, hosts, and outlets. It doesn't have to be all from one organization or even from an org (but titles go far during interviews). People like cyclone are very good at talking about their attempts in certain areas of the firearms issue(s). Now, private individuals can't be listed without their endorsement and preferably an independent e-mail address from their regular usage.

Something like:
Name, email - short blurb on what aspects of firearms they would be comfortable or best to talk about. Possibly times they would most likely be available for a live conversation.

Doug_M
06-23-2016, 06:44 AM
There's been one press release long ago, now since forgotten in the hectic newsies minds.

There's been one REAL press release from the CCFR. These types of press releases cost money. The type of "press releases" where an org just posts it to their website and emails some news outlets are free, but also go straight to the trash bin. If you want more I suggest you donate and encourage others to do the same. If you can't afford to donate then encouragement is free.

harbl_the_cat
06-23-2016, 09:21 AM
Well most of that is pure bullcrap - especially the crocodile tears part :)

And the CPC has rejected out liberal-ing the liberals and that would have been a failed strategy anyway. Again - making stuff up with no research.

But hey - don't let truth or facts hold you back big guy :)

It's 8 months after the election. Let's see how things go over the next 3 years.

Barring something completely unforeseen, I see no reason to believe the Tories will stay conservative.

Heck, Michelle Rempel, my former MP who I volunteered for is starting to go full cuck - prattling on about her "white privilege" and voting in favor of changing the national anthem.

My Dad met her and gave her a tour of his research facility before he retired a few years ago, he wasn't too impressed with her. I think he described her as "dumb," yet being one of the only young women in the CPC, she's frequently cast in the limelight. I bet as time goes on, she'll reveal herself to be much more red than we were led on.

It seems to me that Harper was able to keep the CPC under wraps to convey the image that the party was actually conservative. With Harper gone and after all the anti-Alberta rhetoric from the ridings the Tories needed to win in Toronto, I believe the Red Tories are going to come out of the woodwork and morph the CPC into the Liberal Party-light. Paying lip service to fiscal conservatism, going full, spineless progressive.

If so, they are dead to me.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I certainly am not pinning my hopes on the CPC having another killer run like they did over the past 10 years.

Foxer
06-23-2016, 09:36 AM
It's 8 months after the election. Let's see how things go over the next 3 years.They've already had their policy convention. And the leadership hopefuls so far as well as the members are not leaning that way. Fact is - it's not like the CPC was crushed at all, it still got a very solid hunk of the vote and the libs took a lot of ridings by a handful of votes. It's not like the NDP who were devastated. The core CPC principles are still valued in the country. At best they'll tone down the social conservative crap which a lot of people weren't that comfortable with in the first place (but which has been very overstated by the 'others')



Barring something completely unforeseen, I see no reason to believe the Tories will stay conservative.

Then you haven't been looking or paying attention. How many times have i begged you to do research before reaching a conclusion.


Heck, Michelle Rempel, my former MP who I volunteered for is starting to go full cuck - prattling on about her "white privilege" and voting in to change the national anthem.That would be social conservative crap. Not everyone is for it. But that hardly suggests the CPC is going liberal.


My Dad met her and gave her a tour of his research facility before he retired a few years ago, he wasn't too impressed with her. I think he described her as "dumb," yet being one of the only young women in the CPC, she's frequently cast in the limelight.Well then pick a better candidate to run! Good god man, if he didn't think much of her then maybe do something about it! If all you're going to do is whine then you're going to have to accept those whom others pick for you.

And in any party there will be those who are better and those who are worse, but the party over all is hardly going 'left'. Perhaps you saw the firearms proposal from the convention?


Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I certainly am not pinning my hopes on the CPC having another killer run like they did over the past 10 years.

Well of course you'll be proven wrong, you've already been proven wrong if you were actually watching what people are saying. And when that happens you'll just blindly ignore it like all the other times your'e wrong and go on to the next unresearched position :) But - first off if you want the CPC to be a certain way it's important to participate and make sure your ideas are out there as well, that's how political parties work. And second off there's a leadership race coming up, be sure to actually pay attention and help pick a leader that is a good fit. If the members of the party and the policy conventions are the 'protein' in the meal, the leader is the seasoning and sauce that finishes it off.

speedloader
06-23-2016, 11:41 AM
from what I have seen from Michelle she is a great debate gal and just loves
pounding on lefty garbage in the house with facts especially when the NDP tabled a budget during the Fed election
that was priceless, she looked at the camera and said "they have absolutley no Idea what they are doing"
after debunking everything they said in about 5 minutes
well here we are in alberta with the socialists in control and she couldn't have been more on the mark
with a top end Vortex in reality

Doug_M
06-23-2016, 11:43 AM
Heck, Michelle Rempel, my former MP who I volunteered for is starting to go full cuck - prattling on about her "white privilege" and voting in favor of changing the national anthem.

She's besties with Warren Kinsella's wife. 'Nuff said.

RangeBob
06-23-2016, 12:21 PM
If the public gets told 2+2=5 long enough, they'll believe it's 5 not 4.

"2+2 equals 5, for large values of 2."
(as taught in university engineering course, referring to safety margin estimates)

TJSpeller
06-23-2016, 12:22 PM
Rempel is an awfully junior and inexperienced MP. Only elected in 2011, and no senior cabinet posts. I'd be very wary of her as a leader.

Sinbad
06-23-2016, 01:08 PM
Thoughts were already addressed. Should be a delete post

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 03:33 PM
Sir Veyor,

Your general thesis here is that the CCFR is not doing its job or caring about the needs of gun owners.

If nothing else, do you not realize the gravity of the fact that the actual President of the CCFR himself, Rod Giltaca, has personally replied to this thread?

The fact that he is that involved and cares that much should immediately defeat your argument that the CCFR is just a bunch of fat cats in the "old boys club" as you stated in your original post.

My general thesis is not about the CCFR in particular. They are following their information reference hub plan. And the NFA is more visual in sourced media comments. So, the CCFR is essentially shyer than the NFA wrt media. I don't think I teed up on the CCFR all by itself. And you're still not the biggest fish in the pond, but you're growing.

The CCFR is still working primarily at gun shows and staying close to the core group of gun owners. It's growing, but currently there is a lot of similarity to how the NFA operates and the circles it moves in.

As for Rod's commenting, his like everyone's thoughts are greatly appreciated and considered. I know he has a lot on the go between work, family, volunteering at the top of the CCFR. So the time needed to speak here is appreciated. And the other org reps also comment here, CGN, etc. It's noteworthy, but let's also not call it a clarion call from on high. No offence is meant to Rod. But as triumvirate per the website, it's important. And I never said fat cats.

My general thesis is that in the massive mainstream media blitz, there has been little of anything expressed by almost any org. The recent uptick in responses seems to be more likely attributed to the media intensively searching for people, rather than any effort by any org to reach out to them. And the lack of social media profile by all the orgs makes them harder to find.

As Foxer spoke on, media doesn't seem to be anyone's bag. The only org who seems to deal in that sphere more than most is the NFA. This is an area of concern. The lack of an institutionalized presence being referenced in media is disconcerting.

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 03:44 PM
There's been one REAL press release from the CCFR. These types of press releases cost money. The type of "press releases" where an org just posts it to their website and emails some news outlets are free, but also go straight to the trash bin. If you want more I suggest you donate and encourage others to do the same. If you can't afford to donate then encouragement is free.

And what's a ballpark cost for a press release? As I said, there needs to be a sense of movement coming from the orgs. Anything I'm finding is indicating largely static institutions. The single main release is fine, but needs some follow through in other means. Yes the YouTube Ad Campaign should help with that. Although neither myself not anyone outside of gun forums I know of has seen it, 100,00+ are good numbers. But most firms concerned about their media presence have regular things going out over various methods on a daily or at worst weekly basis. And their websites run their social media comments on the site. So people visiting can look at prior things and learn more about the brand. If there's three main people at CCFR, why can't small things be released frequently? Line it all up over a quick negotiation, and release them daily until the list is close to its end. Then repeat?

SIR VEYOR
06-23-2016, 03:49 PM
"2+2 equals 5, for large values of 2."
(as taught in university engineering course, referring to safety margin estimates)

Revised:

2+2=37

Sacred number of Eris, Goddess of Discord (along with 17 and 5). The most random two-digit number is 37, When groups of people are polled to pick a “random number between 1 and 100”, the most commonly chosen number is 37.

Doug_M
06-23-2016, 05:23 PM
And what's a ballpark cost for a press release? As I said, there needs to be a sense of movement coming from the orgs. Anything I'm finding is indicating largely static institutions. The single main release is fine, but needs some follow through in other means. Yes the YouTube Ad Campaign should help with that. Although neither myself not anyone outside of gun forums I know of has seen it, 100,00+ are good numbers. But most firms concerned about their media presence have regular things going out over various methods on a daily or at worst weekly basis. And their websites run their social media comments on the site. So people visiting can look at prior things and learn more about the brand. If there's three main people at CCFR, why can't small things be released frequently? Line it all up over a quick negotiation, and release them daily until the list is close to its end. Then repeat?
$1500 or more. I can't remember the exact figure Rod quoted in a CCFR update video. As for the rest, are you volunteering as a media director? You don't think the CCFR has a large enough revenue stream to pay for any part-time let alone full-time employees do you? They have put out a call to any of there members that have media (technical) skills to do these types of things. But how many people in any org or club volunteer? Not many.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Doug_M
06-24-2016, 06:05 AM
NFA President Sheldon Clare on Sask talk radio. Fast forward to minute 13. CCFR President Rod Giltaca is on the same show but I haven't found the audio yet. This clip illustrates why we need the right people talking to the media. These hosts go after Clare with the usual BS and he loses it, hanging up, making us all look like neanderthals who just want our killing machines because.

http://cjme.com/sites/default/files/on-demand/TalkShotsHour2_1.mp3

EDIT: found Rod's interview. Same radio station, same day, but different hosts. And granted they aren't the anti-freaks that Sheldon had to deal with. But they way Rod and the CCFR handles itself seems to be successful so far. Fast forward to minute 8.

http://cjme.com/sites/default/files/on-demand/MAINSTREETHR1-JUN23.mp3

RealDeckard
06-24-2016, 06:45 AM
You have a point. The raging vitriol of some gun owners against others because of a difference of opinion isn't much better. People can disagree but the moment people talk about 'Liberal plants, extremists, cancer' they will assume everyone is a nutter. Those are the people who should never be on the air, or speak on behalf of any of us.

Doug_M
06-24-2016, 06:55 AM
You have a point. The raging vitriol of some gun owners against others because of a difference of opinion isn't much better. People can disagree but the moment people talk about 'Liberal plants, extremists, cancer' they will assume everyone is a nutter. Those are the people who should never be on the air, or speak on behalf of any of us.

You're as bad as Harbl with your one track thread derails. :rolleyes: Last word is yours, I won't respond.

Petamocto
06-24-2016, 08:23 AM
Oh my goodness, that Clare radio show ending was terrible. How on Earth is that your public face when you can't answer an anti's question about why we need semi autos without hanging up. Agree with you, Doug, that interview likely turned more fence sitters against us than for us.

That's what's great about Rod, he has that personable charisma to talk to fence sitters or antis in a manner than persuades and influences them, without scaring them.

The "need" question is easily answered by saying that law abiding people don't have to justify their needs to anyone. Does a person at a liquor store have to justify buying 40% liquor when 5% beer is available? Does a car buyer have to justify why they need a 400hp sports car and not a 200hp car that already has the potential to go way over the speed limit? If society says those people can responsibly enjoy those things even when lots of irresponsible people get killed with alcohol and cars, then we're not obligated to justify why we "need" semi auto. Heart disease is the biggest killer in Canada, I demand that we start making people justify why they need ice cream or Frenchfries.

Calibre
06-24-2016, 10:57 AM
Oh my goodness, that Clare radio show ending was terrible. How on Earth is that your public face when you can't answer an anti's question about why we need semi autos without hanging up. Agree with you, Doug, that interview likely turned more fence sitters against us than for us.

That's what's great about Rod, he has that personable charisma to talk to fence sitters or antis in a manner than persuades and influences them, without scaring them.

The "need" question is easily answered by saying that law abiding people don't have to justify their needs to anyone. Does a person at a liquor store have to justify buying 40% liquor when 5% beer is available? Does a car buyer have to justify why they need a 400hp sports car and not a 200hp car that already has the potential to go way over the speed limit? If society says those people can responsibly enjoy those things even when lots of irresponsible people get killed with alcohol and cars, then we're not obligated to justify why we "need" semi auto. Heart disease is the biggest killer in Canada, I demand that we start making people justify why they need ice cream or Frenchfries.

Honestly, that's not the answer we need to give, because it's as good as an admission that we don't need them. And in this particular regard, there really can be no ground given up.

The need for semi-automatic rifles, regardless of if they're styled like hunting guns or military rifles, is simple: We need them because living in a country that requires licensed and law-abiding citizens justify the possession of inanimate objects with a requisite degree of need, to be determined by what we can only assume would be some politicized and federally mandated metric, is the definition of a police state.

There's also the additional need of a semi-automatic rifle for self-defense, but saying so is more likely to land you in with the crazies, as far as any antis or neutrals are concerned.

RangeBob
06-24-2016, 11:22 AM
We need them because living in a country that requires licensed and law-abiding citizens justify the possession of inanimate objects with a requisite degree of need, to be determined by what we can only assume would be some politicized and federally mandated metric, is the definition of a police state.

I'm not sure if that answer is going to go over well.
Australia banned them, and you'd be hard pressed to find more than a miniscule percentage who would call Australia a police state.
England and Australia require citizens to define the need for each firearm, one of them to the point where they can't sight a hunting rifle in at a range, because range use would be target practice and they expressed and subsequently approved/authorized need was for hunting and that's a different use.

Calibre
06-24-2016, 11:41 AM
Well you always have to tailor the except wording to those you're speaking to. Trade "definition of a police state" for "a less desirable result than the non-existent increase in public safety a gun ban would result in" if you like. Context matters too; precede that comment with plenty of discussion of more harmful, less practical things like alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and the like and you set up the thought process to make the listener a lot more receptive to the notion that government meddling isn't conducive to a life other people would want to live.

RangeBob
06-24-2016, 11:53 AM
precede that comment with plenty of discussion of more harmful, less practical things like alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and the like and you set up the thought process to make the listener a lot more receptive to the notion that government meddling isn't conducive to a life other people would want to live.

I was musing about a "Why do you have that?" document last night during my walk. Typed some of it in but didn't finish it.
As I was typing I began to wonder if that's only effective with people who already agree with you.

Certainly it's a debating technique.
- Get them to agree to a series of points that require your conclusion to be supported (Yes Minister poll)
- the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes question sales technique, where people are just in the habit of saying yes by the end.

SIR VEYOR
06-24-2016, 03:35 PM
$1500 or more. I can't remember the exact figure Rod quoted in a CCFR update video. As for the rest, are you volunteering as a media director? You don't think the CCFR has a large enough revenue stream to pay for any part-time let alone full-time employees do you? They have put out a call to any of there members that have media (technical) skills to do these types of things. But how many people in any org or club volunteer? Not many.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

While I am a technical guy, my field is not in IT. So regardless of my enthusiasm, it wouldn't fit the professionalism on the reference videos, etc. That they do. However, I gathered that Twitter feeds on a website are not too difficult to be included. Even CGC? Has some on their site. I'm not presuming that the CCFR has a large revenue stream. Their site also makes it clear that the top of the structure is three volunteers. Most of these things are also common topics on LinkedIn and other places for ways to raise your personal or corporate profile. Difficulty of implementation isn't described as monumental in those articles. And their website seems static and not showing them doing anything regularly.

Until very recently, say the last few weeks, the only org operating routinely in the mainstream communication area was the NFA. Including a press release of typical shock and awe style of NFA tactfulness immediately after the Orlando shooting. And they are fulfilling their mandate of continued asshattery every chance they get. I have no idea if it was paid or unpaid release, but it got to enough people to get referenced.

The only org that seems to consistently try to operate with the media is the NFA. As Foxer has said, it's not really anybody else's gig, or focus. And the current operator is trying has shot themselves, and us, in at least six extremities. Unfortunately they continue to miss the vital organs and continue to linger.

SIR VEYOR
06-24-2016, 03:41 PM
You have a point. The raging vitriol of some gun owners against others because of a difference of opinion isn't much better. People can disagree but the moment people talk about 'Liberal plants, extremists, cancer' they will assume everyone is a nutter. Those are the people who should never be on the air, or speak on behalf of any of us.

The NFA is currently fulfilling that role. Can we buy out their phone contract or something? Sue them in a class action suit for General asshattery?

Pizzed
06-24-2016, 03:48 PM
Oh my goodness, that Clare radio show ending was terrible. How on Earth is that your public face when you can't answer an anti's question about why we need semi autos without hanging up. Agree with you, Doug, that interview likely turned more fence sitters against us than for us.Did he call her a 'dink' just before hanging up?

What a disaster that was. Someone needs to be 'banned' from dealing with the media.

Doug_M
06-24-2016, 04:20 PM
While I am a technical guy, my field is not in IT. So regardless of my enthusiasm, it wouldn't fit the professionalism on the reference videos, etc. That they do. However, I gathered that Twitter feeds on a website are not too difficult to be included. Even CGC? Has some on their site. I'm not presuming that the CCFR has a large revenue stream. Their site also makes it clear that the top of the structure is three volunteers. Most of these things are also common topics on LinkedIn and other places for ways to raise your personal or corporate profile. Difficulty of implementation isn't described as monumental in those articles. And their website seems static and not showing them doing anything regularly.

Until very recently, say the last few weeks, the only org operating routinely in the mainstream communication area was the NFA. Including a press release of typical shock and awe style of NFA tactfulness immediately after the Orlando shooting. And they are fulfilling their mandate of continued asshattery every chance they get. I have no idea if it was paid or unpaid release, but it got to enough people to get referenced.

The only org that seems to consistently try to operate with the media is the NFA. As Foxer has said, it's not really anybody else's gig, or focus. And the current operator is trying has shot themselves, and us, in at least six extremities. Unfortunately they continue to miss the vital organs and continue to linger.

volunteer@firearmrights.ca

Rory McCanuck
06-24-2016, 11:22 PM
Did he call her a 'dink' just before hanging up?

What a disaster that was. Someone needs to be 'banned' from dealing with the media.

Sure sounded like it.
Wow, just wow...

GTW
06-25-2016, 12:30 AM
Listening to this makes me glad I threw my NFA renewal in the garbage and sent my money to the CCFR & CSSA. Way to go Sheldon ... the sound of one hand clapping.... you've really helped gun owners.

speedloader
06-25-2016, 05:40 AM
Clare is just embarrassing really
how are they still functioning when they have lost membership on such a large scale
He needs to step down as that has been evident for a long time he has no media personality at all
and has fractured any political ties how do you run an org like that?
Granted the lefty media are dumb as a sack of hammers that could get frustrating
but by now you'd think the guy might have some communication skills for dealing with anti's and their BS

Petamocto
06-25-2016, 07:25 AM
To get back to the core of the first question, I really don't think there is an appetite in Canada for an NFA-like lobby under our current reality.

Canadians generally don't like in-your-face messaging about anything, and their scared of guns because they're uninformed. Put those two things together and you end up with a big fail for us if we do the "From my cold dead hands" kind of ads.

Even though I'm biased toward the CCFR, I think the gun community's greatest success has been the CSSA having a part in shaping the Conservative Party's new firearm policy and simplifying the classification system, if you're looking at high-level types of lobbying.

How'd the "No Compromise" message/lobby work out? Not so well. Sounds tough, and gun owners understand the concept, but the average Canadian who doesn't like attitude or guns is just going to think we're crazy.

The best way to lobby is for all of us to chip away at those uninformed fence sitters or antis. Not by getting into pissing matches, but by explaining the Canadian gun laws that already exist. And even better, after all that take them shooting. Not in the woods to have a cowboy fest, but take them to a very strict range so that's the first impression they have of how controlled and responsible we are.

After we get enough of those people, then and only then can we get into bolder lobbying.

SIR VEYOR
06-25-2016, 08:12 PM
To get back to the core of the first question, I really don't think there is an appetite in Canada for an NFA-like lobby under our current reality.

Canadians generally don't like in-your-face messaging about anything, and their scared of guns because they're uninformed. Put those two things together and you end up with a big fail for us if we do the "From my cold dead hands" kind of ads.

How'd the "No Compromise" message/lobby work out? Not so well. Sounds tough, and gun owners understand the concept, but the average Canadian who doesn't like attitude or guns is just going to think we're crazy.


The medium is the massage. Unfortunately, the NFA appears to be the message from the non-gun control side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko6J9v1C9zE

While the CCFR and the CSSA are doing their thing, the wave continues. Starting July 7th until November, the water will be rising in the big muddy (protest song). The US democrats will be trying to tie this to the civil rights movements of old, and lots will want to feel that they are getting in on the experience they didn't get to partake of then (alive or not then).

Time and tides wait for no man.

Petamocto
06-26-2016, 04:42 PM
In Canada this is about as blunt as we can get:

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/883100/84612177.gif

RangeBob
06-26-2016, 06:02 PM
In Canada this is about as blunt as we can get:
Actor Mark Strong from the movie "Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)"

SIR VEYOR
06-26-2016, 08:43 PM
In Canada this is about as blunt as we can get:

We don't have to be blunt. Especially like the main NFA themes. But they seem to be the primary media relations. So it's their message in the medium of most ears, when the "counter argument" even gets considered. And their message turns those ears off. Which makes one on one stuff harder as well, because the preconceived notions are more ingrained, more slanted away.

CCFR is coming along in that realm over the last few weeks, but it's still not a space they seem to want to embrace. Respond if found/asked but not a lot of seeking out just yet...

Foxer
06-26-2016, 09:27 PM
CCFR is coming along in that realm over the last few weeks, but it's still not a space they seem to want to embrace.well it KINDA is, it does fit in their mandate of educating the general public. But - 7 months, it's a little soon for them to really be in that game. it takes time to cultivate some relations with the media. And right now they are volunteers - tho honestly i think that has to stop as soon as possible. It really needs a full time effort.

And the nfa isn't doing much on the public media front - and what they have done in recent times hasn't really helped much, if it hasn't out and out hurt.

There's no need to be blunt to sell a message or inform people.

XTracker5
06-28-2016, 12:39 PM
Meh, CCFR is nothing but a bunch of slackers making podcasts rather than working for our rights....

Not true

Doug_M
06-28-2016, 12:48 PM
Not true

That was meant as a joke. I am a big fan of both the CCFR's work to date (I am proudly member # 744) and of Trevor's podcast.

CLW .45
06-28-2016, 12:54 PM
We don't have to be blunt. Especially like the main NFA themes. But they seem to be the primary media relations. So it's their message in the medium of most ears, when the "counter argument" even gets considered. And their message turns those ears off. Which makes one on one stuff harder as well, because the preconceived notions are more ingrained, more slanted away.

CCFR is coming along in that realm over the last few weeks, but it's still not a space they seem to want to embrace. Respond if found/asked but not a lot of seeking out just yet...

Do you actually have a problem with what NFA says, or are you simply afraid that the great unwashed may have a problem?

FALover
06-28-2016, 01:22 PM
Be Blunt! I am when the age old argument of who should have firearms. Most of the time it is with family and in-laws. I Own Many Guns! I am not a threat to anyone! I may not be considered 'normal' by society but who cares when societies norm is political correctness, a bloated civil service, a provincial premier (Wynne) is allowed to destroy a once great province, and voting in their current PM who has the same designs for Canada.

:vmad:vmad:vmad

Petamocto
06-28-2016, 02:09 PM
Be Blunt! I am when the age old argument of who should have firearms. Most of the time it is with family and in-laws. I Own Many Guns! I am not a threat to anyone!

The problem is that guns have gotten so far away from "normal" now that any blunt or in-your-face talk with these people just scares them and makes them dig in with their position that guns (and us) are scary.

In order to shift these people to our side it takes a polite conversation, some talk about Canadian laws, and a day out at the range as friends, not yelling at them "Don't tread on me!".

Doug_M
06-28-2016, 03:00 PM
Do you actually have a problem with what NFA says, or are you simply afraid that the great unwashed may have a problem?

For me, neither. It is simply a matter of them not being tactful.

Billythreefeathers
06-28-2016, 03:08 PM
I had a life long friend just join the gun owners team,, had offered many time to take him shooting, he always replied that 'guns scared him', and he has done way scarier things then go to the range and shoot guns. IN December 2015 he was scared shitless as he was in San Bernardino when 14 people were killed and his home was locked down,, he said he felt helpless and that he had no way to protect his family. Soon after one of his SB friends took him to a range to shoot, and when he came back to Canada in April we had a long talk about guns and gun laws in Canada.. he now has his RPAL and a glock 35. He was never anti gun just on the fence.. this is how we win, one convert at a time.

Oh and now he wants to try out all my guns ;)

RealDeckard
06-28-2016, 03:11 PM
Some irony. Some here are as subtle and kindly persuasive as a spiked mace (while on a high horse about others).

CLW .45
06-28-2016, 03:18 PM
For me, neither. It is simply a matter of them not being tactful.

Tact is overrated when the goal is to make a clear point.

CLW .45
06-28-2016, 03:31 PM
I had a life long friend just join the gun owners team,, had offered many time to take him shooting, he always replied that 'guns scared him', and he has done way scarier things then go to the range and shoot guns. IN December 2015 he was scared shitless as he was in San Bernardino when 14 people were killed and his home was locked down,, he said he felt helpless and that he had no way to protect his family. Soon after one of his SB friends took him to a range to shoot, and when he came back to Canada in April we had a long talk about guns and gun laws in Canada.. he now has his RPAL and a glock 35. He was never anti gun just on the fence.. this is how we win, one convert at a time.

Oh and now he wants to try out all my guns ;)

As I have stated on many occasions, "to protect life" is the one thing that has an almost universal appeal.

The circumstances that trigger the awakening are not the same for all.

Our purpose should not be to trigger the awakening, but to educate all to the fact that even Canadian law recognizes that interest as being legitimate.

Reasons for possession of pistols according to Section 28 of the firearms act:

1) To protect life

2) For use in connection with lawful profession or occupation (this is not about police).

3) Target practice.

4) Collecting

Section 20 of the act provides for carriage to protect life.

We do ourselves, and the entire nation, a great disservice when we fail to make this widely known.

Doug_M
06-28-2016, 03:34 PM
Tact is overrated when the goal is to make a clear point.

Says you. Many people are quite capable of being tactful yet clear. There is a difference between articulating why there is nothing wrong with Canadians owning AR15's and just yelling "this interview is over" when the other side puts on the pressure.

Doug_M
06-28-2016, 03:38 PM
Some irony. Some here are as subtle and kindly persuasive as a spiked mace (while on a high horse about others).

It's not irony. You are not the general public. You are a fellow gun owner who claims to be an advocate for gun control reform. And no one is on a high horse. Foolishness that works against that reform is simply pointed out and condemned for what it is.

Foxer
06-28-2016, 04:33 PM
"Tact" can be critical when we're educating someone who is simply misinformed. There's an old saying - a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. If you just bludgeon everyone then you get no where.

"Blunt" is best saved for those who have chosen to make up their minds to hate us and there's nothing that can be done. And mostly it's to send the message that we're not going to take their crap anymore and that their bull is unacceptable. There's little point with tact with the Wendy's of the world.

But there's another thing to remember as well - one of the techniques that's proven most effective for us has been the 'planting of seeds'. in other words it's not necessary to convince people in one go. A lot of the time if you just plant the seeds of knowledge, and do so with some consistency, they'll grow on their own and that's the most powerful way to convince people that there is. We have to be planting the seeds of knowledge around us at all times, so that people are exposed to that message again and again from different sources.

SIR VEYOR
06-28-2016, 06:13 PM
Do you actually have a problem with what NFA says, or are you simply afraid that the great unwashed may have a problem?

I don't have a problem with the concepts of the NFA, but most definitely the HOW. Additionally, their management and manners are despicable and uncouth at best description. Their methods of communication have managed to disenfranchise even knowledgeable gun owners. They can't communicate with most of their supposed base, let alone a neutral party/people.

A completely visually incoherent ad in an Ottawa newspaper, many idiotic public statements, behaving like asshats during interviews, displaying a complete lack of all rational thought and discussion. A rabid squirrel on a Red Bull IV has a better chance of convincing people gun owners aren't a fringe element of society. And the statement they released less than 24hrs after the Orlando shooting?

I know I wouldn't look favourably at a group whose representatives are belligerent, condescending, combative, and sound like they want to come over and take a dump on my dinner as a means of showing me that they are harmless and just being over controlled by the man. Sure, these people aren't deserving of my support. Hell, where do I sign up to better control these people?

RealDeckard
06-29-2016, 04:12 PM
Step up if you're smooth.

duy
06-30-2016, 12:03 AM
I had a life long friend just join the gun owners team,, had offered many time to take him shooting, he always replied that 'guns scared him', and he has done way scarier things then go to the range and shoot guns. IN December 2015 he was scared shitless as he was in San Bernardino when 14 people were killed and his home was locked down,, he said he felt helpless and that he had no way to protect his family. Soon after one of his SB friends took him to a range to shoot, and when he came back to Canada in April we had a long talk about guns and gun laws in Canada.. he now has his RPAL and a glock 35. He was never anti gun just on the fence.. this is how we win, one convert at a time.

Oh and now he wants to try out all my guns ;)

This is so true. Everyone needs to get a firearm in their hands to really understand fully it's the user not the gun. :shoot2: Once they realize that they can control a firearm they will be more receptive to pro gun ideas; I think. Otherwise, it's a dangerous scary weapon to them that they have no control over (and haven't experienced... for the most part). And things we can't control we don't like.

"Normal" people who are afraid of guns and won't admit it are generally pro-gun control and as with almost every human being, will make flawed arguments they'll die for like a fanatical terrorist. Pro gunners aren't immune to this as either. That is why it's so important to get the facts right and avoid emotional arguments that make us look like fools. Don't play their game. Arguments like: 'no one needs an AR15', or 'guns are efficient at killing', or 'more guns equals more violence' ... etc. Remember these aren't arguments, nor are they factual. They are ideas that have the general consensus over the principles of necessity and safety but don't actually prove anything. It sounds right but it doesn't make it true. It's sad that people these days aren't convinced by good arguments no matter if they aren't logical.

I think the best thing to do is really get down to the root of why someone is anti-gun (which they generally aren't as they are FOR guns but only for the military and police). Break it down and make them realize what they are actually trying to achieve or trying to say. For example, I had a long talk with one of my coworkers about firearms and he supported banning all firearms from civilians. After breaking it down (but going all over the place as he had multiple 'arguments' like I mentioned above) I finally realized it was because he felt the public could not be trusted because of the perceived lack of training, background checks, and a higher legal/moral standard (which are imposed onto the military and police). So if a solution was given to train, properly screen, and impose heavy penalties to civilians who improperly use firearms he was satisfied that firearms should not be banned from civilians.