PDA

View Full Version : I'm Erin O'Toole, a candidate for CPC leader, and this is my firearms policy



ErinOTooleCPC
11-25-2016, 12:20 PM
Hello members of Gun Owners of Canada.

My name is Erin O'Toole and, as some of you may have heard, I am running to lead the Conservative Party of Canada

I am the only candidate with a detailed firearm policy, and when I say I will overhaul the existing system, I mean it. In that spirit, I am inviting you to read about how I plan to stand up for you at www.erinotoole.ca/firearms. I welcome your questions and feedback on my Facebook page at www.facebook.com/erinotoolecpc

A bit about me: I was born in Montreal, raised in small-town Ontario and served and studied across the country. After high school, I enrolled in the Royal Military College and served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, where I was a navigator on a Sea King Helicopter.

In 2012, I ran for Parliament in the riding of Durham and was later appointed Minister of Veteran Affairs. I am now running to lead the Conservative Party of Canada.

The grassroots members have a big role to play in setting party policy. I want you to know I am on your side. If you have been waiting for a candidate who will call out the Liberals for trying to claim that more regulations on YOU will reduce crime, I am your candidate. To win this leadership race, I will need your support. If you support my policy and want an ally as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, take out a membership and donate $22 or whatever you can spare on my website today at www.erinotoole.ca (http://www.erinotoole.ca)

Sincerely,

Erin

P.S. I will come back in a few days and also answer questions in this thread. There is also a dialogue happening on my FB page about this issue that you're welcome to be part of: https://goo.gl/LGZhDL



http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/attachment.php?attachmentid=1853&stc=1

GonZo
11-25-2016, 12:29 PM
Welcome to the forum. I just read your rather short policy that does not have much in the way of specifics. One question that I would have is what is your view on the AR-15 and it's status as a restricted firearm? This simple answer would tell a lot of where you stand on firearms issues.

Asking here as facebook is not my thing.

lone-wolf
11-25-2016, 01:11 PM
It's pretty awesome to see you join, I hope you stick around for longer than to pimp out your fb page.

I'll parrot GonZo's question on the ar15. I can hunt with my mini14, why shouldn't I be able to do the same with my ar15?
There's dozens of questions on firearms alone. Your detailed answer on that would indicate whether it's lip service to us or not.

Edit:
With the candidates running around, there's going to need to be another long gun registry destroying level promise to get our attention.

Have a read through the forums here and CGN, sift through some non-sense(although we don't argue about whether or not the word fart is offensive...) and you'll find some of the most informed, dedicated, and underrepresented voters out there.

CobraGuy
11-25-2016, 01:53 PM
Interesting. Would like to hear more details on your plan before I donate.

CLW .45
11-25-2016, 01:53 PM
In response to one of your campaign emails I wrote this:



Erin,

Please understand this. Firearms law, as it stands, is designed to disarm our nation. That is unacceptable.

Anything that is done with the law and regulations must, yes must, include the following:

1. "Need must be removed from sections 20 and 28 of the act.

2. Prohibition must be repealed.

3. Criminalization of mere possession must be repealed.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to write.

Thanks,

Wayne

And your response is?

Wendell
11-25-2016, 04:44 PM
...My name is Erin O'Toole and, as some of you may have heard, I am running to lead the Conservative Party of Canada. I am the only candidate with a detailed firearm policy, and when I say I will overhaul the existing system, I mean it. In that spirit, I am inviting you to read about how I plan to stand up for you at www.erinotoole.ca/firearms. I welcome your questions and feedback on my Facebook page at www.facebook.com/erinotoolecpc...

That is probably awesome for people on Facebook.


Standing Up for Firearm Owners

I will fight the Liberals and defend law-abiding firearm owners.

As Prime Minister, I will end the politicization of firearms and rollback measures that have no impact on public safety. Within 180 days of forming government, I will overhaul the classification system to ensure that it is clear, fair and has law-abiding firearm owners directly involved in the process. Will you stand with me and support my campaign to lead the Conservative Party by purchasing a membership and making a donation?

Canada is a nation with proud rural and outdoor traditions. Learning to hunt or target shoot with a family member is a way of life for millions of Canadians and must be respected. Firearm owners, be they hunters, farmers or sport shooters are among the most law-abiding citizens in Canada.
As leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, I will:

Oppose efforts to reverse the former Conservative government’s policy advances on firearms, including new restrictions on transportation and use, which I will repeal within 180 days of forming government.
Oppose regulations that do not advance public safety and instead penalize law abiding firearm owners. This includes the arbitrary reclassification of firearms and magazines.

As Prime Minister of Canada I will:

Commission an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement.
Mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions and put final authority for classification decisions back in the hands of cabinet.
Focus the resources of the federal government on criminals engaged in the trafficking and use of illegal firearms instead of imposing more layers of bureaucracy on law-abiding Canadians.
Support specialized illegal firearms enforcement led by the CBSA and RCMP working closely with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, to target smuggling operations before illegal firearms reach the border.


<https://erinotoole.ca/policy/firearms/>

Anybody who isn't on Facebook - being unable to leave any comment there - can leave a comment (https://erinotoole.ca/contact/) on his website.

https://erinotoole.ca/contact/

Zinilin
11-25-2016, 04:49 PM
Erin;

In the last policy convention a number of amendments on firearms were voted, almost unanimously, into the party policy. The amendments included “A Conservative government would streamline firearms classification by adopting the Simplified Classification System.”

Yes or No question...

Will you commit to introducing the enabling legislation for the Simplified Firearms Classification System within your first two years as government leader?

Zinilin
11-25-2016, 04:50 PM
Erin;

Essay Question...

What legislation will you introduce in your first three years as government leader to decriminalize the ownership, possession and storage of firearms by Canadians?

TJSpeller
11-25-2016, 04:58 PM
Mr. O'Toole, thank you for coming onto the Gun Owners of Canada web site. To my limited knowledge, I believe that's the first time any significant politician has come here, identified themselves by name, and asked for input. Thank you for doing that. It shows me that you take gun owners seriously as a key part of the CPC base.

I would echo Zinlin's question. Do you understand the significance of, and agree to support, the changes passed in the last CPC Policy Convention in Vancouver with respect to firearms, ESPECIALLY the Simplified Classification System, which is very important as it would eliminate the RCMP's seemingly unlimited and arbitrary power to define any firearm as a variant of any prohibited and restricted firearm.

And please do bear in mind that many of us (and not only gun owners) intentionally DO NOT use FACEBOOK and never intend to. I have been disappointed to see many politicians in the past few years migrate most of their online activity to Facebook because it's convenient and easy. This is a mistake, as it will shut out some of your audience, and arguably it would disproportionately shut out people who are inclined to listen to your message as a conservative.

Strewth
11-25-2016, 05:02 PM
Hello Erin, welcome to the forums. Great to see a leadership candidate taking the time to open themselves to the online firearms community.

Malus
11-25-2016, 05:12 PM
I remember when Harper was originally going for the PM job and told us he was gonna get rid of C68 and such. Didn't happen, though he did garner our support. Promise the world and then blame some other one/reason on why you have to renege on the promise. Been down that road too many times. Do something first besides political promises and then we'll see......

Foxer
11-25-2016, 06:30 PM
I remember when Harper was originally going for the PM job and told us he was gonna get rid of C68 and such. Didn't happen, though he did garner our support.

Yeah.... he didn't actually win the PM job tho. He was defeated. If you don't actually get the job, you can't actually deliver on the promise. I suppose some people might have thought that was obvious but i guess we do need to spell that out for SOME who don't get it :) If Mr O'toole is not actually elected to prime minister, he will not be delivering on his promises as to what he will do if elected as prime minister. I know politics are confusing for you, but that IS the way our system works.

The next time harper ran he promised to get rid of the gun registry instead. And when eventually he WAS elected prime minister with a proper majority he got rid of the gun registry. I'm sure that if Mr O'toole is elected as prime minister he will honour his promises.

Coke
11-25-2016, 06:50 PM
Hello Erin,

It is nice to see a leadership candidate come on one of our forums and engage us personally. It is very refreshing to see that someone cares enough about us gun owners.

Also, thank you for your service. I am a Veteran as well, serving 20 years and releasing medically. I appreciate what you did in Veterans Affairs, especially with the mess you inherited.

The only question I can think of, that is not asked by the others before me is: Will you get us out of the stupid UN gun marking regulations that have been acknowledged by this Liberal government? I am very interested in the answers you provide here, to all the questions posed. And, if you ever come to Kingston, Ont, I would very much like to meet you.

Thanks. Cheers...

Richard

SeirX
11-25-2016, 07:27 PM
*If* you're reading this...

Welcome to the forum Erin.
And good on you for having the balls to make your presence known - not something many politicians would do on a firearms-hobby forum.
Let alone to announce their intent regarding said hobby.
Let's be clear - this IS a hobby. Most hobbies are expensive and time consuming, and this is no different - save that you need a license and you'll never see a news article about the RCMP breaking down doors to "confiscate" someone's collection of trains or video-games should someone's license-renewal be held-up in the administrative-backlog.

Having read your proposed actions, if-and-when elected, I have some questions:
What plans do you have to help improve the image of responsible firearms owners in Canada? - you may have noticed they tend to be demonized - particularly when certain parties and individuals begin their yearly traditions of media-bias ignorant[in the sense of a lack of knowledge of facts]-public-swaying.

What, in your opinion, qualifies one as an "expert", for the classification of firearms, and interpretation of the laws and sometimes intentionally vague language contained in said laws?

I would personally be interested in your thoughts on bolstering the economy with the hiring of qualified individuals to take that 180-days and turn it into 90 [or perhaps 120 days]. One would think that 6-months is more than sufficient to examine and consider the ramifications of classifying a newly imported machine.
If I am wrong on this, I would appreciate being educated as to why 6-months was the acceptable turn-around time for this.

Thank you for your time

ilikemoose
11-25-2016, 07:33 PM
I am pleased as can be that a CPC leadership candidate is interested in hearing from us.

corytrevor
11-25-2016, 07:43 PM
You should be legally accountable for your election promises. As should all candidates.

My firearms aren't a hobby.

They are a heritage, upbringing, tool, and proven protector of my life.

Grey_Wolf
11-25-2016, 07:51 PM
Very happy to see a potential leader on here willing to engage the masses. Mr. O'Toole, do you participate in any shooting sports, target shooting, plinking or hunting yourself? Are you a licensed firearms owner? Some of what you say has my attention.

lone-wolf
11-25-2016, 07:57 PM
I went to the discussion on fb, lot of jibber jabber so I asked that he revisit this thread since some of the members do not use facebook

greywolf67nt
11-25-2016, 08:43 PM
Welcome aboard Mr. O'Toole.
I am happy to see a CPC leadership candidate even showing an interest in our little forum here.
All the talk from Maxime Bernier and we don't see him on here.
We have all been bitten on the hiney before so the proof will be in the pudding.

JustBen
11-25-2016, 09:29 PM
I want to hunt with an AR-15. I want to have as many cartridges in my magazine as I deem fit. I want to use a sound suppressor.

If you will let me do all three, I will renew my CPC membership and kick you $100 for your campaign.

Scotty-B
11-25-2016, 10:05 PM
I want the freedom to self protect at, and away from the home without being an instant criminal, and to have the ability as a member of the group of "the most law biding and responsible members of society", to be able to responsibly have those tools available at all times. I can do it for work already, why should I have to be vulnerable every other time?

Stephen
11-25-2016, 11:11 PM
Nice to see you post, we exchanged a message on facebook last week.

blacksmithden
11-25-2016, 11:15 PM
Greetings Mr O'toole. Thank you for showing an interest in our circumstances. As one of the older members on the site, and as a licensed firearms dealer, I have to echo what greywolf67nt said. We've heard a lot of talk before with only partial results that come at a snails pace, if at all. I'm going to ask you a few straight forward questions that are also statements, about things that are a constant thorn in our side and are constantly discussed (read: complained about) throughout this site, and throughout the firearms owning community in general. Sorry to be so blunt, but vague answers are the political norm that we've seen over and over, and they don't carry any real weight with us anymore. When we get canned form letters back from MP's we treat them with distain and fully realize we're just being paid lip service. Please say what you mean clearly.

1. Do you have a good understanding and knowledge of the current firearms act and sections of the criminal code that pertain to firearms ? If you do, you will understand why I'm asking the following questions. If you do not, then before making any promises, you really should read the current (and somewhat insane) firearms act and understand it so you know what silliness we've been dealing with for the past few decades. Without fully understanding a problem, it is impossible to come up with viable solutions.

2. Will you repeal magazine capacity limits ?

3. Will you de-restrict the AR10 & AR15 series of rifles so that gun owners can legally hunt with them ?

4. Are your intentions to work with, and modify the current (and extremely flawed) firearms act, or are you looking at doing a complete replacement of the act with common sense legislation that does not treat honest firearms owners as nothing more than criminals who are yet to be caught...and are on the 'to do' list of the RCMP ?

5. Will you end the prohibited classification of firearms, and allow current legal gun owners with restricted endorsements (who can never get a prohibited endorsement under the current laws) on their licenses to own firearms that are now classed as prohibited ?

6. Will you pass legislation that stops police from using the blanket "in the interest of public safety" excuse to blindly confiscate (and often damage in the process) a licensed firearm owners valuable property (guns & ammunition) for the slightest reason, before a court issues a order to do so ? The RCMP illegally broke into 2000 homes during the High River (Alberta) floods and actively searched for and confiscated people's firearms. That is but one example of them abusing their power and they experienced absolutely no personal reprocussions. At the very least, if the officers involved are not to be held accountable as it is now, would you support all law suit damage settlements being deducted directly from the RCMP's operation budget, rather than being directly paid out with taxpayer's money ?

7. Will you remove the current system of provincial chief firearms officers, and replace them with one centralized, educated, civilian body that manages the firearms act in Canada in a sensible, and consistent way rather than giving individual agenda driven police officers the power to make up rules as they go along like it is with the current system ?

I could go on all night, but I know your time is limited. The vast majority of firearms owners on this site are honest, responsible, hard working, ordinary people. All are also upstanding and well respected target shooters and hunters. We have an excellent understanding of the current firearms act, because we have to. I have no doubt that each and every one of us will be glad to reciprocate your offer, and answer any questions that YOU may have of us. Thank you for your time sir.

lone-wolf
11-25-2016, 11:29 PM
He said on Facebook that he'll be back to answer some questions.

Coke
11-26-2016, 08:25 AM
Greetings Mr O'toole. Thank you for showing an interest in our circumstances. As one of the older members on the site, and as a licensed firearms dealer, I have to echo what greywolf67nt said. We've heard a lot of talk before with only partial results that come at a snails pace, if at all. I'm going to ask you a few straight forward questions that are also statements, about things that are a constant thorn in our side and are constantly discussed (read: complained about) throughout this site, and throughout the firearms owning community in general. Sorry to be so blunt, but vague answers are the political norm that we've seen over and over, and they don't carry any real weight with us anymore. When we get canned form letters back from MP's we treat them with distain and fully realize we're just being paid lip service. Please say what you mean clearly.

1. Do you have a good understanding and knowledge of the current firearms act and sections of the criminal code that pertain to firearms ? If you do, you will understand why I'm asking the following questions. If you do not, then before making any promises, you really should read the current (and somewhat insane) firearms act and understand it so you know what silliness we've been dealing with for the past few decades. Without fully understanding a problem, it is impossible to come up with viable solutions.

2. Will you repeal magazine capacity limits ?

3. Will you de-restrict the AR10 & AR15 series of rifles so that gun owners can legally hunt with them ?

4. Are your intentions to work with, and modify the current (and extremely flawed) firearms act, or are you looking at doing a complete replacement of the act with common sense legislation that does not treat honest firearms owners as nothing more than criminals who are yet to be caught...and are on the 'to do' list of the RCMP ?

5. Will you end the prohibited classification of firearms, and allow current legal gun owners with restricted endorsements (who can never get a prohibited endorsement under the current laws) on their licenses to own firearms that are now classed as prohibited ?

6. Will you pass legislation that stops police from using the blanket "in the interest of public safety" excuse to blindly confiscate (and often damage in the process) a licensed firearm owners valuable property (guns & ammunition) for the slightest reason, before a court issues a order to do so ? The RCMP illegally broke into 2000 homes during the High River (Alberta) floods and actively searched for and confiscated people's firearms. That is but one example of them abusing their power and they experienced absolutely no personal reprocussions. At the very least, if the officers involved are not to be held accountable as it is now, would you support all law suit damage settlements being deducted directly from the RCMP's operation budget, rather than being directly paid out with taxpayer's money ?

7. Will you remove the current system of provincial chief firearms officers, and replace them with one centralized, educated, civilian body that manages the firearms act in Canada in a sensible, and consistent way rather than giving individual agenda driven police officers the power to make up rules as they go along like it is with the current system ?

I could go on all night, but I know your time is limited. The vast majority of firearms owners on this site are honest, responsible, hard working, ordinary people. All are also upstanding and well respected target shooters and hunters. We have an excellent understanding of the current firearms act, because we have to. I have no doubt that each and every one of us will be glad to reciprocate your offer, and answer any questions that YOU may have of us. Thank you for your time sir.

This ^^^

FlyingHigh
11-26-2016, 10:27 AM
Mr O'Toole, welcome to GOC. You have earned major points in my book by taking enough of a personal interest in the concerns of firearms owners to join this site. I think you'll find that firearms owners have reasonable requests, despite some people coming off as quite jaded. We've all be jerked around by a very flawed system for a very long time and quite frankly are growing extremely tired of it. To have a politician actually have the courage to not only say he'll stand with us, but to also come into our online "clubhouse" as it were is encouraging.

I very much look forward to seeing your responses to some of the posts here. If you only have time for a few responses, the best place to start in my opinion would be blacksmithden's post. He sums up many of our concerns.

My three main questions are:

1. Will you support moving to the Simplified Firearms Classification system? The current system does not allow for the proper common sense classification of firearms and instead uses emotion and opinion.

2. Will you support removing the CFO's and the power of classification from the RCMP and instead putting it in the hands of people who do not have an agenda? For too long we've been at the mercy of these corrupt and heavily anti-gun biased people.

3. Will you support the legalization of the use of suppressors in Canada for sport shooting and hunting? The current case in Regina where people are complaining about the RCMP using the range which is near housing is a perfect example of why suppressors should be legalized. That's to say nothing of the increased safety with regard to loss of hearing damage and the advantages of hunting without spooking all the local game

greywolf67nt
11-26-2016, 10:35 AM
Greetings Mr O'toole. Thank you for showing an interest in our circumstances. As one of the older members on the site, and as a licensed firearms dealer, I have to echo what greywolf67nt said. We've heard a lot of talk before with only partial results that come at a snails pace, if at all. I'm going to ask you a few straight forward questions that are also statements, about things that are a constant thorn in our side and are constantly discussed (read: complained about) throughout this site, and throughout the firearms owning community in general. Sorry to be so blunt, but vague answers are the political norm that we've seen over and over, and they don't carry any real weight with us anymore. When we get canned form letters back from MP's we treat them with distain and fully realize we're just being paid lip service. Please say what you mean clearly.

1. Do you have a good understanding and knowledge of the current firearms act and sections of the criminal code that pertain to firearms ? If you do, you will understand why I'm asking the following questions. If you do not, then before making any promises, you really should read the current (and somewhat insane) firearms act and understand it so you know what silliness we've been dealing with for the past few decades. Without fully understanding a problem, it is impossible to come up with viable solutions.

2. Will you repeal magazine capacity limits ?

3. Will you de-restrict the AR10 & AR15 series of rifles so that gun owners can legally hunt with them ?

4. Are your intentions to work with, and modify the current (and extremely flawed) firearms act, or are you looking at doing a complete replacement of the act with common sense legislation that does not treat honest firearms owners as nothing more than criminals who are yet to be caught...and are on the 'to do' list of the RCMP ?

5. Will you end the prohibited classification of firearms, and allow current legal gun owners with restricted endorsements (who can never get a prohibited endorsement under the current laws) on their licenses to own firearms that are now classed as prohibited ?

6. Will you pass legislation that stops police from using the blanket "in the interest of public safety" excuse to blindly confiscate (and often damage in the process) a licensed firearm owners valuable property (guns & ammunition) for the slightest reason, before a court issues a order to do so ? The RCMP illegally broke into 2000 homes during the High River (Alberta) floods and actively searched for and confiscated people's firearms. That is but one example of them abusing their power and they experienced absolutely no personal reprocussions. At the very least, if the officers involved are not to be held accountable as it is now, would you support all law suit damage settlements being deducted directly from the RCMP's operation budget, rather than being directly paid out with taxpayer's money ?

7. Will you remove the current system of provincial chief firearms officers, and replace them with one centralized, educated, civilian body that manages the firearms act in Canada in a sensible, and consistent way rather than giving individual agenda driven police officers the power to make up rules as they go along like it is with the current system ?

I could go on all night, but I know your time is limited. The vast majority of firearms owners on this site are honest, responsible, hard working, ordinary people. All are also upstanding and well respected target shooters and hunters. We have an excellent understanding of the current firearms act, because we have to. I have no doubt that each and every one of us will be glad to reciprocate your offer, and answer any questions that YOU may have of us. Thank you for your time sir.

This^^^^

CLW .45
11-26-2016, 10:54 AM
Promises are all very well and good.

But, a private member's bill, with every MP voting on it, would give a clear indication of who to support in the next election.

Or in this leadership campaign.

RealDeckard
11-26-2016, 01:06 PM
Will you keep your promises to us or let insiders, handlers and shills worm those promises into 'pledges' that couldn't be kept because of 'the reality of politics?' I'm not trying to be rude, but that's what you will face.

ErinOTooleCPC
11-26-2016, 01:10 PM
I'm really pleased to see the discussion this post is generating. I want to give this a few more days for everyone in the community to chime in. I am reading all of your posts and will make time in the near future to answer your questions. I want to reflect on what I've seen so far, discuss with my team and give you a thoughtful, honest answer.

I think you're tired of being promised the moon and being let down. I may not go as far as everyone in this community would like, but I am on your side when the chips are down. I do not believe our current system is effective. It needs to be redesigned with your input. That will be my approach as leader and as prime minister. It will be difficult to make progress in this area with the Liberals having a majority government.

The first step is to elect a conservative leader who shares your values AND who can beat Justin Trudeau in 2019. I hope to convince you by the end of this campaign that I am that candidate. I don't expect to win you over overnight.

lone-wolf
11-26-2016, 01:12 PM
It'd be nice not having to worry about the rcmp busting doors down anymore because a rivet in a magazine may or may not exist.
Or ruining someone's life because a .22lr magazine may or may not have been designed to work in a pistol and a rifle.

BSD's 7 questions are a great start for answering.

RangeBob
11-26-2016, 01:37 PM
It'd be nice not having to worry about the rcmp busting doors down anymore because a rivet in a magazine may or may not exist.

I'm not worried about the RCMP busting down my doors. As far as I know everything in my house is legal, and I surf CGN keeping an eye out for the recently prohibited (either by Gazette or RCMP interpretation); and my neighbours are pretty nice folk.

I'm more worried about having a fire. One of my neighbour's homes caught fire and we had four fire trucks and two ambulances and a few police cars on my street with everyone outside watching at 2am on a cool morning a year ago. The neighbour had no fire extinguisher. The end result being the interior of the house including the floors and drywall had to be replaced, and everything they owned was junk.
If a neighbour's home catches fire (nothing I can do about preventing that), and my home catches fire as a result, with me in hospital intensive care unit, my home destroyed, having to clean it up -- then the police show up and decide to secure my firearms.
Somewhere at that point one of two things happens
- something I have that has been shown in RCMP literature as the way to do things, is now illegal, or
- a police officer thinks something is illegal when its legal, and charges me anyway
So then, in addition to my huge health and financial and life upheaval woes, I'm gut punched with criminal code charges as well.

It would be nice not having to worry about that.

Yes, I have house insurance and firearms legal defence insurance.

DanN
11-26-2016, 01:49 PM
Good day Mr. O'Toole, and welcome to GOC.

Your decision to join and participate here is of great significance.

Nowhere else will you find a well reasoned group of people on a wide range of topics who are also vetted by the RCMP daily. Cabinet ministers aren't even so well scrutinized.

So please, answer as many questions here that you can, but also ask about why some of us take the positions we do and try to understand, even if you disagree or don't support those positions. If you give us an opportunity to be heard, we could become your greatest allies.

So, my question is - will you become part of our community, engage and participate with us?

Joshua13
11-26-2016, 04:07 PM
I think an important question that is similar to danN's is do you own or have you owned firearms? Have you ever been to a gun range or gone hunting? And if your answer is no to these would you be willing to?

It's obvious that you want to help and get our support, but is it because you want to represent us or do you honestly have an interest in the firearms community?

I think it would go very well with a lot of people on here and even conservatives in general if you were involved rather then just receiving feedback from us.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

Buster
11-26-2016, 05:38 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned allowing pistols in the bush once again for protection from wildlife. We aren't always hunting and carrying rifles. There are many activities many Canadians participate in that won't allow us to carry a cumbersome rifle. A simple overnight/long distance back country hike, cross country skiing or mountain biking are a few, and as back up protection for archers. The average non-restricted hunting rifle has 4-8x the energy of the average pistol and an effective range in excess of 20x. Surely no one actually thinks a pistol is more dangerous than a rifle.

Suppressors... Even with hearing protection, we still receive hearing damaging sound levels from most moderate caliber firearms. Suppressors do not even come close to eliminating the sound, rather they lower them to a safer level. Hollywood is not a true representation believe it or not.

AR-15's... They once were legal for hunting in Canada, but how many times have they been used in a crime in Canada prior to becoming restricted? Since becoming restricted? Surely anyone can think of dozens of common objects which have played part in more violent crimes per day than the AR-15 had in its 20 years as a non restricted firearm, as well as 30 years restricted.
They are a lightweight small caliber rifle which operate with the same principals as numerous other light weight small caliber rifles. The popularity of them lies mostly in the fact they are easily personalized with various accessories/into various configurations. The typical non restricted hunting rifle has 3x the energy.

Magazine restrictions are absolutely pointless and unenforceable against those with criminal intent. It takes less than 1 second with a grinder, or 20seconds with a file, or 4 seconds with a drill, or 5 seconds with a pice of scrap metal picked up off the shoulder of the road and a rock to remove the robots which limit the magazine capacity. The penalty for removin the pin means nothing to a violent criminal does it? The only people following the rules are the very people who have no violent intent in the first place.

Get tough on vilolent criminals, leave us and our firearms alone.

soulchaser
11-26-2016, 06:00 PM
Greetings Mr O'toole. Thank you for showing an interest in our circumstances. As one of the older members on the site, and as a licensed firearms dealer, I have to echo what greywolf67nt said. We've heard a lot of talk before with only partial results that come at a snails pace, if at all. I'm going to ask you a few straight forward questions that are also statements, about things that are a constant thorn in our side and are constantly discussed (read: complained about) throughout this site, and throughout the firearms owning community in general. Sorry to be so blunt, but vague answers are the political norm that we've seen over and over, and they don't carry any real weight with us anymore. When we get canned form letters back from MP's we treat them with distain and fully realize we're just being paid lip service. Please say what you mean clearly.

1. Do you have a good understanding and knowledge of the current firearms act and sections of the criminal code that pertain to firearms ? If you do, you will understand why I'm asking the following questions. If you do not, then before making any promises, you really should read the current (and somewhat insane) firearms act and understand it so you know what silliness we've been dealing with for the past few decades. Without fully understanding a problem, it is impossible to come up with viable solutions.

2. Will you repeal magazine capacity limits ?

3. Will you de-restrict the AR10 & AR15 series of rifles so that gun owners can legally hunt with them ?

4. Are your intentions to work with, and modify the current (and extremely flawed) firearms act, or are you looking at doing a complete replacement of the act with common sense legislation that does not treat honest firearms owners as nothing more than criminals who are yet to be caught...and are on the 'to do' list of the RCMP ?

5. Will you end the prohibited classification of firearms, and allow current legal gun owners with restricted endorsements (who can never get a prohibited endorsement under the current laws) on their licenses to own firearms that are now classed as prohibited ?

6. Will you pass legislation that stops police from using the blanket "in the interest of public safety" excuse to blindly confiscate (and often damage in the process) a licensed firearm owners valuable property (guns & ammunition) for the slightest reason, before a court issues a order to do so ? The RCMP illegally broke into 2000 homes during the High River (Alberta) floods and actively searched for and confiscated people's firearms. That is but one example of them abusing their power and they experienced absolutely no personal reprocussions. At the very least, if the officers involved are not to be held accountable as it is now, would you support all law suit damage settlements being deducted directly from the RCMP's operation budget, rather than being directly paid out with taxpayer's money ?

7. Will you remove the current system of provincial chief firearms officers, and replace them with one centralized, educated, civilian body that manages the firearms act in Canada in a sensible, and consistent way rather than giving individual agenda driven police officers the power to make up rules as they go along like it is with the current system ?

I could go on all night, but I know your time is limited. The vast majority of firearms owners on this site are honest, responsible, hard working, ordinary people. All are also upstanding and well respected target shooters and hunters. We have an excellent understanding of the current firearms act, because we have to. I have no doubt that each and every one of us will be glad to reciprocate your offer, and answer any questions that YOU may have of us. Thank you for your time sir.

Yup.

CLW .45
11-26-2016, 06:06 PM
Promises are all very well and good.

But, a private member's bill, with every MP voting on it, would give a clear indication of who to support in the next election.

Or in this leadership campaign.

May I suggest that you introduce a private member's bill to repeal section 28 of the act?

Haywire1
11-26-2016, 07:10 PM
Greetings Mr O'toole. Thank you for showing an interest in our circumstances. As one of the older members on the site, and as a licensed firearms dealer, I have to echo what greywolf67nt said. We've heard a lot of talk before with only partial results that come at a snails pace, if at all. I'm going to ask you a few straight forward questions that are also statements, about things that are a constant thorn in our side and are constantly discussed (read: complained about) throughout this site, and throughout the firearms owning community in general. Sorry to be so blunt, but vague answers are the political norm that we've seen over and over, and they don't carry any real weight with us anymore. When we get canned form letters back from MP's we treat them with distain and fully realize we're just being paid lip service. Please say what you mean clearly.

1. Do you have a good understanding and knowledge of the current firearms act and sections of the criminal code that pertain to firearms ? If you do, you will understand why I'm asking the following questions. If you do not, then before making any promises, you really should read the current (and somewhat insane) firearms act and understand it so you know what silliness we've been dealing with for the past few decades. Without fully understanding a problem, it is impossible to come up with viable solutions.

2. Will you repeal magazine capacity limits ?

3. Will you de-restrict the AR10 & AR15 series of rifles so that gun owners can legally hunt with them ?

4. Are your intentions to work with, and modify the current (and extremely flawed) firearms act, or are you looking at doing a complete replacement of the act with common sense legislation that does not treat honest firearms owners as nothing more than criminals who are yet to be caught...and are on the 'to do' list of the RCMP ?

5. Will you end the prohibited classification of firearms, and allow current legal gun owners with restricted endorsements (who can never get a prohibited endorsement under the current laws) on their licenses to own firearms that are now classed as prohibited ?

6. Will you pass legislation that stops police from using the blanket "in the interest of public safety" excuse to blindly confiscate (and often damage in the process) a licensed firearm owners valuable property (guns & ammunition) for the slightest reason, before a court issues a order to do so ? The RCMP illegally broke into 2000 homes during the High River (Alberta) floods and actively searched for and confiscated people's firearms. That is but one example of them abusing their power and they experienced absolutely no personal reprocussions. At the very least, if the officers involved are not to be held accountable as it is now, would you support all law suit damage settlements being deducted directly from the RCMP's operation budget, rather than being directly paid out with taxpayer's money ?

7. Will you remove the current system of provincial chief firearms officers, and replace them with one centralized, educated, civilian body that manages the firearms act in Canada in a sensible, and consistent way rather than giving individual agenda driven police officers the power to make up rules as they go along like it is with the current system ?

I could go on all night, but I know your time is limited. The vast majority of firearms owners on this site are honest, responsible, hard working, ordinary people. All are also upstanding and well respected target shooters and hunters. We have an excellent understanding of the current firearms act, because we have to. I have no doubt that each and every one of us will be glad to reciprocate your offer, and answer any questions that YOU may have of us. Thank you for your time sir.

Hear hear. Time for straight answers, not double speak.

Wendell
11-26-2016, 09:07 PM
This is a tough crowd. You remind me of a classic movie scene.

Skip to 1:22.

https://youtu.be/I73sP93-0xA?t=82

FlyingHigh
11-26-2016, 11:04 PM
I don't think it's a tough crowd at all. You should see the mess in his thread over on CGN. Yikes...

speedloader
11-27-2016, 04:26 AM
Hello Mr O Toole thanks for your interest
pretty much every question I would ask you has been asked in this thread
would just like to add that this crap has gone on long enough
We are Moms, Dads, Neighbors , Co workers, law abiding responsible citizens
not criminals , the real criminals now run the country so they must be removed first
lets be honest .
The firearms laws are a complete waste of tax money and do very little to stop
any crimes and need to be repealed.
we have laws in place that cover any and all offenses with any object which then also becomes a weapon.
Firearms are the least used of all facts say,Yet they are the most exploited for the anti agenda.
Most parts of the firearms act was nothing more than a feel good Libtard fairy tale
written by antis who have no idea how most firearms even operate, and to this day still haven't read the laws.

so you can imagine some of the absolute absurd things we have to do to use our property
that have no bearing on safety at all but limit us greatly from defending ourselves or others if need be
or even just enjoying our property at the range or hunting.

If you are truly interested in our votes take the Rpal course and purchase a so called restricted firearm
so you can see why we are all very offended by being watched more than convicted pedophiles
based on no facts what so ever, as we are safer and more responsible then most police
as minister Blaney discovered and was quite vocal about when the CPC was our Goverment.
who by the way would still be so if alot of our sensible informed owners had their way.

Thank you for reading

Scotty-B
11-27-2016, 06:30 AM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned allowing pistols in the bush once again for protection from wildlife. We aren't always hunting and carrying rifles. There are many activities many Canadians participate in that won't allow us to carry a cumbersome rifle. A simple overnight/long distance back country hike, cross country skiing or mountain biking are a few, and as back up protection for archers. The average non-restricted hunting rifle has 4-8x the energy of the average pistol and an effective range in excess of 20x. Surely no one actually thinks a pistol is more dangerous than a rifle.


I eluded to this in a more general form, but have addressed exactly this in other forums. You definitely are not alone.

Doug_M
11-27-2016, 07:03 AM
Gun owners are a varied group and we all want something different. But we do strive to work together to advance our cause. The most recent fruits of those efforts was the adoption of the simplified classification system as policy at the last convention. An affirmative to implement that policy (in short order) is required to get my vote (I am a party member) and many many others here.

Thanks for your time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Petamocto
11-27-2016, 08:04 AM
Most gun owners in Canada generally understand that gun ownership is a privilege, and some form of citizen control will likely be required going forward (PAL, FAC, whatever) for Ottawa and the public to handle.

However, once someone gets over those hurdles and passes all the tests, we need to be trusted and left alone at that point. I can understand the safety test, the background checks, the references, the waiting period, etc, but it is absurd that once someone gets through all that and proves themselves to be among the most trust-worthy they can be, laws exist to further inhibit their access, even though that person is no threat at all to public safety.

Once someone has their PAL/FAC, all senseless laws should stop. This includes anything that is:
- calibre based
- action based
- capacity based
- barrel length based
- looks based

In summary, it is maddening and frustrating to know that no matter how many hurdles I overcome to prove that I am a trust-worthy citizen, I still have pointless restrictions. Make it illegal for gang members who can't get a PAL to own a gun, sure, but don't tell us that we can't hunt with a rifle because of its looks, or tell me that I'm trusted to own a gun with a 4.2" barrel but not 4".

Pizzed
11-27-2016, 08:08 AM
^That opening statement won't be popular with the 'No Compromise' crowd but it is accurate.

RealDeckard
11-27-2016, 08:18 AM
Being left alone is a popular sentiment. That, and the restoration of the rights every other citizen enjoys. No more, no less.

speedloader
11-27-2016, 09:34 AM
I think Peta hit it dead on .... once we get licensed which includes all the security and background checks
which don't get me wrong I totally agree with ,then leave us alone.
Imagine the tax dollars that would save to put toward catching actual criminals
that are a threat to the safety of all of us

newfie1986
11-27-2016, 09:40 AM
I don't think it's a tough crowd at all. You should see the mess in his thread over on CGN. Yikes...

You can say that again. I am glad this guy decided to come here. It seems the whole bunch over on the other side are fighting with one another. Makes everyone look bad

Joshua13
11-27-2016, 10:33 AM
I would like to point out that the CCFR has a really good firearms policy they would like to see inacted to law. It includes both training and background checks and removes some useless laws. Its worth reading over.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

CLW .45
11-27-2016, 11:32 AM
Erin, may I suggest that you weigh carefully what people are saying they want, as opposed to what they consider possible.

Their opinion of the posssible, like mine, is pure speculation. As is yours.

Case in point. Florida, in the mid eighties, moved from our "may issue" carry to protect life system to a "shall issue" system. Marian Hammer, who led the push for change, was told that she should give up, that it would never happen, that it was impossible.

She ignored that advice and prevailed.

There is precisely nothing in the Firearms Act, and precious little in part III of the criminal code, that has any positive public safety benefit.

The act is nothing more, nor less, than an attack on firearms ownership.

With that understanding, you have said that you will tell us what you are prepared to do.

I will base my decision on what you have to say, as will many others. Some have indicated their support for anything short of "screw you, the agenda is going ahead full steam."

Interesting, to say the least.

Justice
11-27-2016, 11:33 AM
"...I will overhaul the existing system..." Nothing personal, but shooters have heard that before from your Party. It's exactly what Mulroney said prior to getting elected in 1984. Then he prohibited many non-restricted firearms, banned standard capacity magazines for many firearms, placed arbitrary limits on magazine capacity, and created so-called safe storage laws that criminalized innocent behaviour.
Harper didn't help your Party's cause when he took away the 'challenge the test' and failed to stop unelected civil servants making law by regulation either.
"...my Facebook page..." You'd best look closer at their rules. Facebook disallows the sale of firearms on the site. Very decidedly anti-firearm ownership.

lone-wolf
11-27-2016, 12:15 PM
Government has the privilege of getting paid to tell us how to live and what we can buy.
Gun ownership a privilege. The battle cry of the serf.

Billythreefeathers
11-27-2016, 12:20 PM
Greetings Mr O'toole. Thank you for showing an interest in our circumstances. As one of the older members on the site, and as a licensed firearms dealer, I have to echo what greywolf67nt said. We've heard a lot of talk before with only partial results that come at a snails pace, if at all. I'm going to ask you a few straight forward questions that are also statements, about things that are a constant thorn in our side and are constantly discussed (read: complained about) throughout this site, and throughout the firearms owning community in general. Sorry to be so blunt, but vague answers are the political norm that we've seen over and over, and they don't carry any real weight with us anymore. When we get canned form letters back from MP's we treat them with distain and fully realize we're just being paid lip service. Please say what you mean clearly.

1. Do you have a good understanding and knowledge of the current firearms act and sections of the criminal code that pertain to firearms ? If you do, you will understand why I'm asking the following questions. If you do not, then before making any promises, you really should read the current (and somewhat insane) firearms act and understand it so you know what silliness we've been dealing with for the past few decades. Without fully understanding a problem, it is impossible to come up with viable solutions.

2. Will you repeal magazine capacity limits ?

3. Will you de-restrict the AR10 & AR15 series of rifles so that gun owners can legally hunt with them ?

4. Are your intentions to work with, and modify the current (and extremely flawed) firearms act, or are you looking at doing a complete replacement of the act with common sense legislation that does not treat honest firearms owners as nothing more than criminals who are yet to be caught...and are on the 'to do' list of the RCMP ?

5. Will you end the prohibited classification of firearms, and allow current legal gun owners with restricted endorsements (who can never get a prohibited endorsement under the current laws) on their licenses to own firearms that are now classed as prohibited ?

6. Will you pass legislation that stops police from using the blanket "in the interest of public safety" excuse to blindly confiscate (and often damage in the process) a licensed firearm owners valuable property (guns & ammunition) for the slightest reason, before a court issues a order to do so ? The RCMP illegally broke into 2000 homes during the High River (Alberta) floods and actively searched for and confiscated people's firearms. That is but one example of them abusing their power and they experienced absolutely no personal reprocussions. At the very least, if the officers involved are not to be held accountable as it is now, would you support all law suit damage settlements being deducted directly from the RCMP's operation budget, rather than being directly paid out with taxpayer's money ?

7. Will you remove the current system of provincial chief firearms officers, and replace them with one centralized, educated, civilian body that manages the firearms act in Canada in a sensible, and consistent way rather than giving individual agenda driven police officers the power to make up rules as they go along like it is with the current system ?

I could go on all night, but I know your time is limited. The vast majority of firearms owners on this site are honest, responsible, hard working, ordinary people. All are also upstanding and well respected target shooters and hunters. We have an excellent understanding of the current firearms act, because we have to. I have no doubt that each and every one of us will be glad to reciprocate your offer, and answer any questions that YOU may have of us. Thank you for your time sir.

This ^^^

CLW .45
11-27-2016, 12:23 PM
Government has the privilege of getting paid to tell us how to live and what we can buy.
Gun ownership a privilege. The battle cry of the serf.

Yep.

The right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, it is a Canadian thing, whether recognized by government or not.

RangeBob
11-27-2016, 12:34 PM
Most gun owners in Canada generally understand that gun ownership is a privilege, and some form of citizen control will likely be required going forward (PAL, FAC, whatever) for Ottawa and the public to handle.
It's a quashed Right. Quashed by Allan Rock, with the support of the Liberal Party of Canada 1995.

It had been called a Right in Hansard many times over the course of Canadian history, and the histories from which Canada derives its laws.

The supreme court affirmed the existence of the Firearms Act's Licencing provisions in 2005 in R. v. Wiles, using the word 'privilege' to indicate the result of 1995's Firearms Act's licencing.


However, once someone gets over those hurdles and passes all the tests, we need to be trusted and left alone at that point. ...

Once someone has their PAL/FAC, all senseless laws should stop. This includes anything that is:
- calibre based
- action based
- capacity based
- barrel length based
- looks based

In summary, it is maddening and frustrating to know that no matter how many hurdles I overcome to prove that I am a trust-worthy citizen, I still have pointless restrictions.

Agreed.



tell me that I'm trusted to own a gun with a 4.2" barrel but not 4".

http://www.rangebob.com/Canada/HecklerKochRestrictedProhibitedBarrel.jpg

http://www.rangebob.com/Canada/MauserC96_AntiqueRestrictedProhibited.png

ilikemoose
11-27-2016, 01:56 PM
I do have a question for Mr OToole?

What will you do for gun owners that Brad Trost and Maxime Bernier will not?

Billythreefeathers
11-27-2016, 03:09 PM
I don't think it's a tough crowd at all. You should see the mess in his thread over on CGN. Yikes...

embarrassing is more like it

Billythreefeathers
11-27-2016, 03:20 PM
Mr OToole

How do you intend to defeat Justin?

LB303
11-27-2016, 03:45 PM
Greetings Erin. Good for you, for taking an active interest in the 10% of the voting-age public that enjoys firearms.
Looks like I am late to the party again. 'Likes' for many of the preceding posts, and a comment for one or two in particular.

Even though I have always had libertarian leanings, I have to admit, I never was as politically aware as I am now, since joining the ranks of gun ownership in Canada. It's really out of neccessity rather than preference.

RangeBob has succinctly pointed out the fallacy of the statist policy of taking away our rights and selling them back to us as a licensed 'privilege'


...the real criminals now run the country so they must be removed first...
My feeling also, for much more than the scope of this discussion


...exploited for the anti agenda... ... fairy tale written by antis ...
Substitute the word "Marxist" in place of "anti" and you have a more accurate picture


...take the Rpal course and purchase a so called restricted firearm....
Yes please, walk a mile in our shoes. I think Steven Blaney would concur, it's bound to be an eye-opener.
Certainly it gave him a more intimate perspective on the subject than either Mr Goodale or Ms McLellan would appear to have.
Personally I found the most distasteful part of the whole process was having to memorize the disinformation handed down along with the factual, in order to obtain the best possible grade.


...gun ownership is a privilege... citizen control...
What the Marxists would have us believe, as a step on the road to total prohibition and total control.

It pleases me very much to read some of your CPC colleagues' comments this week re Castro, in contrast to those of our Feckless Leader. In spite of your competition with some for the party leadership, I do hope you can find common ground on that matter.

Stephen
11-27-2016, 04:03 PM
I just donated $3 to your campaign. There is more to come. As far as I know you are the only member to reach out to us so far.

RangeBob
11-27-2016, 08:10 PM
CGN's
"I’m Erin O’Toole, candidate for CPC leader. I stand with law abiding firearm owners "
thread, post #285


We are locking this thread. It is our policy not to allow people to open accounts using real names of people.

In this case, we do not believe this account is directly controlled by Erin O tool

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1486173-I’m-Erin-O’Toole-candidate-for-CPC-leader-I-stand-with-law-abiding-firearm-owners?p=13228930&viewfull=1#post13228930

CLW .45
11-27-2016, 08:16 PM
Don't believe, or don't like the content?

Shouldn't have been difficult to verify, if that was their concern.

RealDeckard
11-27-2016, 08:45 PM
Epic troll if true.

newfie1986
11-27-2016, 09:10 PM
Its unlocked over there now.

RangeBob
11-27-2016, 09:36 PM
Its unlocked over there now.

Yes.


I understand there was briefly some confusion regarding whether this account is official. It is indeed official and I thank the CGN admins for working with me to quickly resolve the issue. As promised, I will be answering the questions that have been posed shortly. I am really pleased with the debate this post has generated.

Steveo9mm
11-27-2016, 09:36 PM
do you take selfies?

ErinOTooleCPC
11-27-2016, 10:04 PM
There was briefly some confusion as to whether my account is official. It is indeed official, and the CGN admins worked with me to quickly resolve the confusion. Anyone who has doubts, including the admins of this forum, are welcome to direct message my verified Twitter or Facebook accounts.

I'm really happy with the discussion my post has generated. As promised, I will be answering the questions posed by the community within the next few days.

Foxer
11-27-2016, 10:16 PM
do you take selfies?

Go stand in your corner and think about what you've done.

LB303
11-27-2016, 10:29 PM
Actually your corner has been expropriated for improvements to the information highway. But you can rent it for now.

Corners are being radiused in the interest of public safety!

RangeBob
11-27-2016, 10:56 PM
. .

Relic49
11-28-2016, 07:21 AM
Where's your last post RangeBob,did I miss it???

murph83
11-28-2016, 11:29 AM
Mr.O'Toole, Thanks for joining the forum, we are glad to see you here. I will get right to it. We are at a point were the gun community has had enough.Full stop. There will be many ideas and suggestions put forward to you, some great, some horrible. I personally think it's time to get "extreme", time to shred the firearms act, get rid of c-68,and completely start over. You are after votes, we are not dumb, we get that fact. Painful truth is if you want the gun owners vote your going to have to do extreme things for gun owners. That means doing things that will get you tore up in the media and attacked from the anti's at a rate you probably wouldn't expect. We are at that point, I know that sounds crazy and insane....BUt the simple truth is, if you want the votes you are gonna have to be "that guy" you probably don't believe me, you are after all a politician, and you have to find a way to appeal to the masses. Do what you will, rest assured you won't get very many gun owner votes without doing "extreme" things for gun owners. That's just the painful truth....

DanN
11-28-2016, 01:02 PM
I have to agree and disagree with Murph83.

I do agree that the Firearms Act needs a complete delete and redo, but I also have to say that the CPC will, in all likelihood, get my vote unless a seriously viable 3rd party rises. There are no circumstances under which I would vote LPC or NDP, nor would I abstain from voting. I think that most of us here at GOC likely feel the same way.

That said, if you want the firearms community to WORK FOR YOU, via vocal support, donations, volunteering, etc, you have to show us the goods: A solid and clear commitment to change. If you can do that we will bend over backwards to support you.

CLW .45
11-29-2016, 01:33 PM
Mr.O'Toole, Thanks for joining the forum, we are glad to see you here. I will get right to it. We are at a point were the gun community has had enough.Full stop. There will be many ideas and suggestions put forward to you, some great, some horrible. I personally think it's time to get "extreme", time to shred the firearms act, get rid of c-68,and completely start over. You are after votes, we are not dumb, we get that fact. Painful truth is if you want the gun owners vote your going to have to do extreme things for gun owners. That means doing things that will get you tore up in the media and attacked from the anti's at a rate you probably wouldn't expect. We are at that point, I know that sounds crazy and insane....BUt the simple truth is, if you want the votes you are gonna have to be "that guy" you probably don't believe me, you are after all a politician, and you have to find a way to appeal to the masses. Do what you will, rest assured you won't get very many gun owner votes without doing "extreme" things for gun owners. That's just the painful truth....

Yep.

As for the strange idea that a real pro-gun candidate can't get elected in Canada, I don't believe that for a second.

But, I am willing to support one. And if he doesn't get elected, find another and support him. What kind of candidate is going to stand for election on those terms?

An exceptional candidate. One who is prepared to do what is right, rather than what is convenient. One who is more interested in accomplishing what he has promised, than in getting the job.

An exceptional candidate wants substantial change just as we do, will stand up and say so, then work to make it happen.

An exceptional candidate will tell the electorate what he plans to do, rather than what he thinks they want to hear.

Personally, I would respect Erin more if he told us to get stuffed, than if he just strung us along with some vague promises of support.

RealDeckard
11-29-2016, 01:48 PM
Spot on.

Strewth
11-29-2016, 02:44 PM
embarrassing is more like it

I am left to wonder how some of the...more forward anonymous internet folk...start off conversations when talking to their MPs, or how they start any conversation with any person that has just introduced themselves.

GaryCaine
11-30-2016, 08:33 AM
At the CPC convention in Vancouver we passed the following additions to the CPC policy on firearms.

- A Conservative Government will not deprive Canadian Citizens of legally owned firearms.

- A Conservative Government recognizes that civilian firearms ownership is a Canadian Heritage.

- A Conservative Government would streamline Firearms classification by adopting the Simplified Classification System.

- A Conservative government would order a review of firearms related laws to identify parts of those Acts that have no public safety value.

Will you act on these policies and specifically will enact the Simplified Classification System within the first year of being Prime Minister?

RangeBob
11-30-2016, 01:39 PM
- A Conservative government would order a review of firearms related laws to identify parts of those Acts that have no public safety value.

Erin O'Toole:

what does that resolution mean to you ?
Can you name three parts of those Acts that you believe probably have no public safety value ?

CLW .45
11-30-2016, 01:53 PM
[QUOTE=GaryCaine;431278]- A Conservative government would order a review of firearms related laws to identify parts of those Acts that have no public safety value.

Erin O'Toole:

what does that resolution mean to you ?
Can you name three parts of those Acts that you believe probably have no public safety value ?

Now that is just too easy.

Erin, please name three sections of the act or of Part III of the code that actually have a public safety value.

Make him work a little.

Joshua13
11-30-2016, 06:04 PM
I want my wife to be able to defend herself if someone tries to break in and harm/rape her while she is home and I'm not. And if she feels she must shoot and kill that person to protect herself and her kids. Then she should not be charged with anything and further then that she should be help up in honor as a woman who took a stand for herself and her kids.

Right now as the law sits she could very easily end up in jail. So we have to ask ourselves what is worse having my wife raped but still being able to see her everyday or having her not raped but in jail for homicide. That is a position that no one should ever have to be in, especially in a country like ours.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

TheCenturion
12-01-2016, 09:19 AM
I want my wife to be able to defend herself if someone tries to break in and harm/rape her while she is home and I'm not. And if she feels she must shoot and kill that person to protect herself and her kids. Then she should not be charged with anything and further then that she should be help up in honor as a woman who took a stand for herself and her kids.

Right now as the law sits she could very easily end up in jail. So we have to ask ourselves what is worse having my wife raped but still being able to see her everyday or having her not raped but in jail for homicide. That is a position that no one should ever have to be in, especially in a country like ours.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

I know there are recent examples of people being charged for defending themselves with firearms, but how many of them actually result in conviction? I agree it's unconscionable that the prevailing method in Canada is 'charge everything even tangentially related and let the courts sort it out,' and that it's still an amazing ordeal to go through the system, and needs to be changed, but do the courts, eventually, sort it out, generally correctly?

Joshua13
12-01-2016, 09:39 AM
I was under the impression they would likely end up getting some form of charge. Manslaughter rather the murder of something to that effect. Unless there's there's something g clearly written that you can protect yourself it's a really tough call. We don't have thousands of dollars for a lawyer.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

glockfan
12-01-2016, 10:50 AM
I'm really pleased to see the discussion this post is generating. I want to give this a few more days for everyone in the community to chime in. I am reading all of your posts and will make time in the near future to answer your questions. I want to reflect on what I've seen so far, discuss with my team and give you a thoughtful, honest answer.

I think you're tired of being promised the moon and being let down. I may not go as far as everyone in this community would like, but I am on your side when the chips are down. I do not believe our current system is effective. It needs to be redesigned with your input. That will be my approach as leader and as prime minister. It will be difficult to make progress in this area with the Liberals having a majority government.

The first step is to elect a conservative leader who shares your values AND who can beat Justin Trudeau in 2019. I hope to convince you by the end of this campaign that I am that candidate. I don't expect to win you over overnight.

this part should have been steven harper's words in the last election.

we see all kind of demands wishes regarding the FA. we all knows c-68 should be scrapped with all the grey parts allowing the rcmp to play havoc with it, BUT it can't be done in a blink, whoever will get into the cpc leadership seat, he must gather more support in order to pass some of the changes needed, maybe the remelt of c-68, but we need a cpc in majority to get to that point where a complete revamp of the FA is possible.

we must unite like we did to get the LGR gone.....not like the last time when we turned the cpc down like cry babies ; we lost much more than we gained in the last 10 years under a cpc reign .

this is clear ; the liberals has been elected because we lost our mind..

Scotty-B
12-05-2016, 01:56 AM
I was under the impression they would likely end up getting some form of charge. Manslaughter rather the murder of something to that effect. Unless there's there's something g clearly written that you can protect yourself it's a really tough call.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5697359&File=24#1

The summary of the Bill:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rsddp-rlddp/index.html

JustBen
12-05-2016, 07:12 AM
I had high hopes for this thread. I expected to see some responses from the candidate.

Malus
12-05-2016, 09:24 AM
The whole thread is about "hope". Thats what political parties do (over and over and over). Then you'll get "too good" to be true promises, add in a little "wishful thinking" and some more "hope", then "maybe", we get change the next time around.........Sheesh. CPC should have done this before they lost the election, not after the fact. Now, they have a few years to brainwash gun owners into thinking they are on our side and promising the moon. Wash, rinse, repeat.....

RangeBob
12-05-2016, 03:06 PM
I had high hopes for this thread. I expected to see some responses from the candidate.

I'm kind of content that both here and at CGN there are lots of different people replying.

One of the threads on CGN is up to 75 pages of replies.

Any politician who looks at that would see confirmation that there's interest in federal politics in our issue.

Gunrunner
12-06-2016, 07:05 AM
Yeah.... he didn't actually win the PM job tho. He was defeated.

It was actually Steves evil twin brother that was PM of the majority CPC government from 2011 - 2015.
Phone CSIS ... they'll confirm it. ;)

lone-wolf
12-06-2016, 11:59 AM
I had high hopes for this thread. I expected to see some responses from the candidate.

He is hopefully busy trying to figure out how to turn back the clock 100yrs

JustBen
12-06-2016, 12:16 PM
He is hopefully busy trying to figure out how to turn back the clock 100yrs

I'd settle for 30.

Gunrunner
12-06-2016, 03:45 PM
I hope that a cpc leadership candidate presents him/her self who can can come up with more original excuses or http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o117/arianwynlleuad/smiley_central_idea.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/arianwynlleuad/media/smiley_central_idea.gif.html) or even better breaks with the tradition and past practice of lies and deceit and actually is honest and upfront with Canadian gun owners and says that the party believes in the system of licensing and classification codified in the c68 firearms act but will allow us to keep our guns free from harassment under those conditions.

You'd be surprised how many would appreciate the novelty of candor and honesty in politics and be happy with the status quo as it exists today if presented with a clear honest choice without the fluff and bs ... probably 99% of all Canadian gun owners.

Show us the basic respect of an honestly worded choice and it will be appreciated and rewarded.

The new "Charlton Heston" leadership candidates just add insult to the injury of being lied to because we all know they are 90% full of crap.

blacksmithden
12-06-2016, 05:59 PM
Anyone notice that it's been over a week since we heard anything from this gentleman ? Nov 27 to be exact.

gtr
12-06-2016, 06:05 PM
Not surprised?

Swampdonkey
12-06-2016, 06:27 PM
Anyone notice that it's been over a week since we heard anything from this gentleman ? Nov 27 to be exact.

Never break an election promise while the election is still ongoing.

murph83
12-06-2016, 07:25 PM
The CCFR is touting that they have chatted with him for close to an hour. Apparently he has said that things need to change..etc etc. I will be surprised if he comes back here and honestly sticks around to engage with us. It would be nice, but I doubt it. Remember folks, he won't want to seem like he is pandering to one group of people and somehow playing favorites.

RangeBob
12-06-2016, 07:48 PM
Anyone notice that it's been over a week since we heard anything from this gentleman ? Nov 27 to be exact.

CGNer ErinOTooleCPC's last post on CGN was 2016-11-27, 10:31 PM.
He's made 11 posts there.

mavrik9
12-06-2016, 07:55 PM
The CCFR is touting that they have chatted with him for close to an hour. Apparently he has said that things need to change..etc etc. I will be surprised if he comes back here and honestly sticks around to engage with us. It would be nice, but I doubt it. Remember folks, he won't want to seem like he is pandering to one group of people and somehow playing favorites.
It would still be nice to see a reply.

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

CLW .45
12-06-2016, 11:29 PM
Mr. O'Toole says he "stands with law abiding firearm owners."

What he and the others don't seem to understand is that many of us are concerned that, if he stands too close, he may be able to knife us in the back.

Much of that concern is promoted by the total absence of substantial change in their firearms policies.

Now, I am going to piss some people off. The Simpleton's Classification System is not substantial change. As with the C-42 reversal of the SA/CZ reclassifications, the retention of the prohibited classification makes it Pixie Dust.

Makes you feel good - and given the number of prohibs I have that will return to restricted, I will be doing a little happy dance - it leaves the disarmament agenda intact. That happy dance will likely be limited to two or three steps. Pity!

The following is an email response from Mr. O'Toole.




The classification system at present is an exercise conducted by a specialized unit within the RCMP that has a track record of making decisions that are arbitrary. There is no legal definition of what constitutes a "variant" firearm, yet this is used to re-classify firearms regularly. This definition is needed, which is why I supported and worked with an MP months ago on his Private Members Bill on the subject. This level of certainty will assist, as will a new classification body that requires the direct participation of manufacturers and firearms users. The fact that end users and the people who manufacture the firearm are not involved show that the process currently is disconnected from people making and using the firearms. Most of the frustration I have seen in the community in recent years has come from thie broken system, which is why it is my priority.

As I said, I am making this pledge because it is the right call based on my experience and consultations. I also don't make promises that cannot be delivered in order to chase votes. You will be able to assess all candidates in this leadership and assess who has the track record of doing what they say and standing up for these issues in the past. Vote however you think is best. This will likely be my last email on this issue as I try and keep up with all online and email dialogue and it can be very challenging. I am the only candidate doing this too.

Thanks,

Erin


This was received December 3, 2016. The bold section indicates that he has no understanding of the actual issue with the prohibited classification. I had hopes that this forum, and others, would have served to educate him. It has not, and I expect that his next post will verify that conclusion. There is still time for a leadership candidate to demonstrate an understanding of the situation, and to demonstrate a serious interest in resolving the issues, rather than simply throwing us a bone.

Gunrunner
12-07-2016, 12:30 AM
Mr. O'Toole says he "stands with law abiding firearm owners."
http://i334.photobucket.com/albums/m407/spacex88/j0285294.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/spacex88/media/j0285294.gif.html)
Especially the gun owners with their cheque books in one hand and their pens in the other.:rolleyes:

Doug_M
12-07-2016, 06:43 AM
Now, I am going to piss some people off. The Simpleton's Classification System is not substantial change. As with the C-42 reversal of the SA/CZ reclassifications, the retention of the prohibited classification makes it Pixie Dust.

Piss me off? No. Shake my head? Yes.

It isn't intended to be the end game. It is intended to be a mechanism for social change that leads to the end game. Besides the obvious of removing the RCMP's ability to make arbitrary decisions, the SCS will mean black rifles will make their way into the field where ordinary citizens, hell ordinary hunters, will see them (think affordable AR-15's vice the expensive XCR's). This is the "normalization" process. It is a stepping stone and means to an end. It is substantial change and it is a mechanism for more substantial change. But you know that. You're just being obstinate, because I know you're no fool.

RangeBob
12-07-2016, 07:26 AM
[feel free to discuss the categorization of 3, missing/excessive bullet points, and whatnot. Please try not to spend too much time ridiculing my optimistic year estimates. :) ]

Lately I've been dividing my wants into 3 categories.

RECENT TRIVIAL STUPIDITY - to be fixed in 2017
- 22LR 25 round magazine ban. This is malum prohibitum based on an obtuse reading of regulations. No bearing on malum in se. No public safety benefit. It could be fixed in 10 minutes by adding a half dozen words to the regulations.
- Challenge CFSC restored.
- and of course, do no more harm for no provable public safety benefit

NO PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFIT, INDEED LACK CAUSES HARM -- to be fixed in 2018
- Simplified Classification System (side effect, removes ability for RCMP to reclassify firearms, for the RCMP to make law. Gets rid of 'variant' stupidity.)
- Lifetime PALs (revocable with due process)
- Suppressors
- improved CFSC availability
- handgun hunting and wilderness carry a feature of PAL
- Police can auction seized firearms (regulation change)
- restore standard mags (regulation change)
- reject UN Marking regulations

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE -- requires Conservative government 2020.
- ATC removal of "need". "Shall issue" based upon two tests {firearms proficiency, knowledge of use of force in defence of life or property}
- Eliminate punitive safe storage and transport
- Decriminalize anything associated with firearms unless a true crime such as robbery is involved.
- Repeal prohibited weapons order that bans stun guns, pepper spray
- non-restricted = no possession licence only acquisition; restricted = pal no att; full auto = Rpal w/ att

RealDeckard
12-07-2016, 07:40 AM
Even if the phrase 'pixie dust' makes you shart, the party should not go that route any longer. Substantive change = substantive support.

RangeBob
12-07-2016, 07:51 AM
By way of example.

Suppressors.

A typical hunting rifle will produce a muzzle blast of approximately 166 dB (decibels). Adding a good quality sound suppressor to that rifle will reduce the muzzle blast to around 138 dB. This is below the hearing safe limit for impulse noise of 140 dB.

Db is a logarithmic scale. Doubling the sound for every increase of 6dB. You probably listen to television around 50dB-60dB. You probably tell your kids to turn it down when they play music at 80dB-90dB (anything over 85dB is considered dangerous). A chain saw is 110dB. The world's loudest shout is 129dB. A rivet hammer is 130dB. A jet aircraft is 140dB.

Several western countries around the world allow suppressors. Canadian police legally use sound suppressors to protect their hearing. A few LE agencies in Canada are now mandating the use of a can on their "patrol carbines" due to OH&S studies and regulations. At least one country was forced to allow suppressors because of a lawsuit about hearing damage, and the government's prohibition violating OH&S regulations.

It not only protects the shooter's hearing, but dramatically reduces noise complaints near shooting ranges (including those where the neighbours signed waivers at purchase), and reduces farm livestock discomfort.

It has no detrimental effect on bystander hunting safety or awareness, because 140dB is still loud, and the supersonic bullet flight noise is 150dB.

The reason suppressors (aka silencers, moderators, a can) are banned is because of movies in the 1940s-1960s where silencers falsely made a pfft noise around 30dB. That's less loud than any motor in your house, including fridge, furnace, microwave. It's quieter than most people whisper in a library. Again, a real volume for a bullet fired through a suppressor is near 140dB, not 30dB. 140dB is 262,144 times louder than 30dB (140-30/6=18. 2^18=262144).

It has no criminal effect, because criminals don't bother with the risk of possessing a silencer, when they can use a plastic pop bottle full of shaving cream or a folded over pillow and get almost the same reduction as a good quality sound suppressor.

The law is pointless from a public safety benefit.
The law causes harm to shooters, and neighbours.
Both of these facts have been recognized by science, and in courts with the benefit of cross-examination, across the world.

speedloader
12-07-2016, 08:17 AM
[feel free to discuss the categorization of 3, missing/excessive bullet points, and whatnot. Please try not to spend too much time ridiculing my optimistic year estimates.

I like it RB well done, especially the Recent Trivial stupidity category
to which I would like to add this:WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS BUT
IF YOU OWN GUNS YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR AN ANTI GUN IDIOT PARTY
BECAUSE THEY WILL IDIOT US TO DEATH WITH THESE TRIVIAL STUPIDITY'S
AND WILL CHANGE THE LAWS TO DO IT AT OUR EXPENSE
IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO DO THIS NEXT TIME PLEASE SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT INSTEAD OF THE REST OF US

TheCenturion
12-07-2016, 01:39 PM
By way of example.

Suppressors.

A typical hunting rifle will produce a muzzle blast of approximately 166 dB (decibels). Adding a good quality sound suppressor to that rifle will reduce the muzzle blast to around 138 dB. This is below the hearing safe limit for impulse noise of 140 dB.

Db is a logarithmic scale. Doubling the sound for every increase of 6dB. You probably listen to television around 50dB-60dB. You probably tell your kids to turn it down when they play music at 80dB-90dB (anything over 85dB is considered dangerous). A chain saw is 110dB. The world's loudest shout is 129dB. A rivet hammer is 130dB. A jet aircraft is 140dB.

Several western countries around the world allow suppressors. Canadian police legally use sound suppressors to protect their hearing. A few LE agencies in Canada are now mandating the use of a can on their "patrol carbines" due to OH&S studies and regulations. At least one country was forced to allow suppressors because of a lawsuit about hearing damage, and the government's prohibition violating OH&S regulations.

It not only protects the shooter's hearing, but dramatically reduces noise complaints near shooting ranges (including those where the neighbours signed waivers at purchase), and reduces farm livestock discomfort.

It has no detrimental effect on bystander hunting safety or awareness, because 140dB is still loud, and the supersonic bullet flight noise is 150dB.

The reason suppressors (aka silencers, moderators, a can) are banned is because of movies in the 1940s-1960s where silencers falsely made a pfft noise around 30dB. That's less loud than any motor in your house, including fridge, furnace, microwave. It's quieter than most people whisper in a library. Again, a real volume for a bullet fired through a suppressor is near 140dB, not 30dB. 140dB is 262,144 times louder than 30dB (140-30/6=18. 2^18=262144).

It has no criminal effect, because criminals don't bother with the risk of possessing a silencer, when they can use a plastic pop bottle full of shaving cream or a folded over pillow and get almost the same reduction as a good quality sound suppressor.

The law is pointless from a public safety benefit.
The law causes harm to shooters, and neighbours.
Both of these facts have been recognized by science, and in courts with the benefit of cross-examination, across the world.

Sorry, just a point of order, 3 db is a doubling of power, 6 db is a quadrupling.

CLW .45
12-07-2016, 03:31 PM
Piss me off? No. Shake my head? Yes.

It isn't intended to be the end game. It is intended to be a mechanism for social change that leads to the end game. Besides the obvious of removing the RCMP's ability to make arbitrary decisions, the SCS will mean black rifles will make their way into the field where ordinary citizens, hell ordinary hunters, will see them (think affordable AR-15's vice the expensive XCR's). This is the "normalization" process. It is a stepping stone and means to an end. It is substantial change and it is a mechanism for more substantial change. But you know that. You're just being obstinate, because I know you're no fool.

Substantial, no.

Substantial would remove prohibition, even with retention of restricted. Moving things around within those classifications is not substantial, no matter how good it feels.

So, no it is not substantial.

RangeBob
12-07-2016, 03:37 PM
Sorry, just a point of order, 3 db is a doubling of power, 6 db is a quadrupling.

I'm aware the power/energy is doubled at 3dB.
I was going after 'human perceived loudness'. 6dB or 10dB is often used for that, to indicate a doubling of perceived loudness.

Doug_M
12-07-2016, 03:53 PM
I'm aware the power/energy is doubled at 3dB.
I was going after 'human perceived loudness'. 6dB or 10dB is often used for that, to indicate a doubling of perceived loudness.

Well us techno-nazis say YOU'RE WRONG (all caps is a 3db increase in spl) so stop it! ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CLW .45
12-07-2016, 03:55 PM
RangeBob
- non-restricted = no possession licence only acquisition; restricted = pal no att; full auto = Rpal w/ att

While nice, this does not qualify as substantial. The nature of the act is not changed.

Doug is correct about the Simpleton's Classification System being a step forward in that it will not only feel good, but tend to normalize.

The problem is that asking for unsubstantial change, and I am assuming that is what happened with the SCS, gives the impression that we are happy with that level of change. An assumption that leads the politicians to believe that no substantial change is required. That belief shines through in every leadership candidate's firearms policy. And non-substantial change leaves the disarmament agenda operating at full steam.

If we are clear in our desire for substantial change, and wind up with less, we can enjoy what we have achieved, while pushing on to our goal, freedom.

PS

There is also another consideration with that licencing change. It, like our current system, would tend to invigorate the "divide and conquer" technique used in much of our firearms law. Give a large proportion of owners what they want, taking them out of contention, while continuing to hammer the remainder, before coming after another segment of that large proportion.

Doug_M
12-07-2016, 03:57 PM
So, no it is not substantial.

Well that's simply your opinion (and you're entitled to it of course). Sometimes you can't go straight from A to B. Obviously I don't think we can. I think trying to take the shorter route straight to B will result in complete failure and likely cause set backs politically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RangeBob
12-07-2016, 04:15 PM
Sometimes you can't go straight from A to B.

We went straight from B to A in 1995.
Australia did it in 12 days.

An agreeable Supreme Court could also do it -- but I'd put the odds of that at under 0.1%, so not worth considering.
For example, Ontario Superior Court Justice John Wright 2007 really botched his Blackstone auxiliary right analysis, in both requirement and history.

I have no objections to citizens who say to politicians that what we want is the stuff I mentioned in SUBSTANTIVE, but that citizens understand if politicians are politically scared to death of doing anything beyond NO PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFIT, INDEED LACK CAUSES HARM this year. Provided that politicians don't use the 'balanced' Bill C42 style again.

CLW .45
12-07-2016, 04:17 PM
Well that's simply your opinion (and you're entitled to it of course). Sometimes you can't go straight from A to B. Obviously I don't think we can. I think trying to take the shorter route straight to B will result in complete failure and likely cause set backs politically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep. My opinion. But, since I defined substantial change, for the purposes of changing firearms law in Canada, in the first place, perhaps my opinion trumps.

Like you, I want the agenda ended. I want freedom.

Unlike you, I refuse to ask for unsubstantial change. Doesn't necessarily make either of us right or wrong.

But, substantial change is that which changes the very nature of the firearms act. It isn't defined by how good it feels, or how much it normalizes our actions.

The act is designed to disarm you.

The basis:

1. Some guns are too dangerous for you to have.

2. You don't need a gun, you have police to protect you.

3. If you don't comply, you are a criminal and the full weight of the law will fall on you from great heights.

Change the law to end any of those and you have substantial change.

Doug_M
12-07-2016, 05:18 PM
RB and CLW, sure and sure respectively. But while you are asking for "your" substantial change don't deliberately undermine "my" substantial change.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Outdoors905
12-07-2016, 05:31 PM
I'm kind of curious about what you might be able to do for me now? We're all seeing it splattered all over the media the past couple of months...blatant mis-representation of facts...let's call them what they are, outright lies. The representation of someone as an expert, who spews those lies without any rebuttal. The CBC is owned and paid for by the taxpayer, how are they allowed to misrepresent the truth and not be held accountable...even when presented with the facts (which i'm sure they knew ahead of time). It should be illegal to push a governments private objective. It's supposed to be OUR news broadcaster, a broadcaster of the truth.
I don't think privatization is the answer (see toronto star...another news agency not interested in facts), but if we're going to keep supporting them they must be completely non-partisan.
I think if the facts were brought to light, none of this fear-mongering, hate-pushing propoganda (it's like "love and forgive everyone...except for gun owners")....we'd be a lot further along.

I hope that made sense, typing on my phone 😜


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Billythreefeathers
12-07-2016, 06:20 PM
I'm kind of curious about what you might be able to do for me now? We're all seeing it splattered all over the media the past couple of months...blatant mis-representation of facts...let's call them what they are, outright lies. The representation of someone as an expert, who spews those lies without any rebuttal. The CBC is owned and paid for by the taxpayer, how are they allowed to misrepresent the truth and not be held accountable...even when presented with the facts (which i'm sure they knew ahead of time). It should be illegal to push a governments private objective. It's supposed to be OUR news broadcaster, a broadcaster of the truth.
I don't think privatization is the answer (see toronto star...another news agency not interested in facts), but if we're going to keep supporting them they must be completely non-partisan.
I think if the facts were brought to light, none of this fear-mongering, hate-pushing propoganda (it's like "love and forgive everyone...except for gun owners")....we'd be a lot further along.

I hope that made sense, typing on my phone ��


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hello,,, welcome to GoC

Rory McCanuck
12-07-2016, 07:06 PM
Indeed, a helluva first post ;D

Swampdonkey
12-07-2016, 09:12 PM
Mr O'Toole,

Thank you for joining GOC to converse with Canadian shooters. We appreciate your initiative.

As freedom-loving gun owners, anything to promote freedom or loosen restrictions makes you our friend. Any increase of restrictions or loss of freedom, by the same standard, makes you our enemy.

Stephen Harper led some poor decisions made by the previous Parliament. Bills C-51, C-30 introduced by Vic Toews, which furthered Canadian progession into a police-state, were extremely offensive to gun owners. What was the victory in ending the long-gun registry if the RCMP + CSIS can tap the phone of anyone suspected of owning a prohibited device?

Like the Reform Party, most of us believe in small, limited government. Great humility is required to understand how yourself as a politician is esteemed by our community.

Whereas shooting and gun collecting are somewhat expensive lifestyles, please note that all here are gainfully employed as a means to find our sporting pursuits. We love economic liberty as much as other liberty. Please consider that we despise taxes.

All the best in your leadership run,
Swampdonkey

Gunrunner
12-07-2016, 11:08 PM
Most of us just want to hear that if you become pm you'll leave the gun laws and gun owners alone.
No grandiose second coming of chuck heston pie in the sky promises like repealing c68 or instituting ccw or any of that crap.
We can live with licensing and classifications which no Canadian government present or future will ever get rid of anyway and anybody who says different is lying.

Just promise us the honest unembellished option of maintaining the status quo and some peace and quiet without systemic harassment from governments and their agencies and 99.9% of Canadian gun owners will be on board with you.
A bit of honesty in all this fake redneck swilling, burping and farting from the other leadership candidates will be like a bottle of top vintage premium brandy at a beer party.
A deliverable election platform based on the truth ... what a novel idea.

hazmat472
12-08-2016, 12:06 AM
I don't believe your statement about the 99.9% to be accurate. I for one am sick and tired of the status quo and want substantial change.



Most of us just want to hear that if you become pm you'll leave the gun laws and gun owners alone.
No grandiose second coming of chuck heston pie in the sky promises like repealing c68 or instituting ccw or any of that crap.
We can live with licensing and classifications which no Canadian government present or future will ever get rid of anyway and anybody who says different is lying.

Just promise us the honest unembellished option of maintaining the status quo and some peace and quiet without systemic harassment from governments and their agencies and 99.9% of Canadian gun owners will be on board with you.
A bit of honesty in all this fake redneck swilling, burping and farting from the other leadership candidates will be like a bottle of top vintage premium brandy at a beer party.
A deliverable election platform based on the truth ... what a novel idea.

Gunrunner
12-08-2016, 12:47 AM
I don't believe your statement about the 99.9% to be accurate. I for one am sick and tired of the status quo and want substantial change.

I don't mean 99.9% of this forum but 99.9% of Canadian gun owners across the country.
Most would settle for a gov't that would tell the RCMP to go back under its rock and lick its nutz.
And give us back the cfsc test challenge option without having to take the course ... that's doable.

Repeal c68 and give us ccw ... not gonna happen and we all know it.

Make way for the chest thumpers :rolleyes:

CLW .45
12-08-2016, 02:35 AM
I don't mean 99.9% of this forum but 99.9% of Canadian gun owners across the country.
Most would settle for a gov't that would tell the RCMP to go back under its rock and lick its nutz.
And give us back the cfsc test challenge option without having to take the course ... that's doable.

Repeal c68 and give us ccw ... not gonna happen and we all know it.

Make way for the chest thumpers :rolleyes:

No chest thumping here. But you just told a leadership candidate that he can continue the system that is cheating my grandchildren out of their inheritance. And their's is chump change compared to many others.

And you are happy, as long as you get to keep your toys.

And to hell with the next group of women who will be dealing bare handed with an armed killer, while waiting for the cops to show up and take custody of their corpses.

Disgusting!

Gunrunner
12-08-2016, 05:24 AM
You're not going to get ccw with guns in Canada ever.
30% of those on cgn don't even approve of it let alone the general media saturated population.
Check the ccw threads.
As for pepper spray we can carry it now as long as we say its for defense against aggressive dogs.

You want any more then better invent a political party that will support such a platform because none of the 4 liberal parties in existence today will.
Until then licensing and classifications are here to stay,

Gunrunner
12-08-2016, 05:53 AM
You're not going to get ccw with guns in Canada ever.
30% of those on cgn don't even approve of it let alone the general media saturated population.
Check the ccw threads.
As for pepper spray we can carry it now as long as we say its for defense against aggressive dogs.

You want any more then better invent a political party that will support such a platform because none of the 4 liberal parties in existence today will.
Until then licensing and classifications are here to stay,
^^ ^^ ^^
There in a nutshell is the truth that none of the cpc leadership candidates will tell you.

Relic49
12-08-2016, 07:35 AM
Remember how the Reform Party of Canada got started?People were tired of the same old same old.Maybe Mr.Otoole should remember that time.If Mr Otoole is sincere in representing responsible firearms owners in this country, he should study the Firearms Act and then come back and tell us what he thinks.But will he?

hazmat472
12-08-2016, 07:59 AM
I know what you meant, you are wrong.


I don't mean 99.9% of this forum but 99.9% of Canadian gun owners across the country.
Most would settle for a gov't that would tell the RCMP to go back under its rock and lick its nutz.
And give us back the cfsc test challenge option without having to take the course ... that's doable.

Repeal c68 and give us ccw ... not gonna happen and we all know it.

Make way for the chest thumpers :rolleyes:

Gunrunner
12-08-2016, 07:59 AM
Remember how the Reform Party of Canada got started?People were tired of the same old same old.Maybe Mr.Otoole should remember that time.If Mr Otoole is sincere in representing responsible firearms owners in this country, he should study the Firearms Act and then come back and tell us what he thinks.But will he?

A few fluffy feel good remarks might get a few cheques en route to him without reading or studying a f'king thing.
Judging by the responses to threads started by candidates or their shills it seems there's some here who'll believe just about anything

TheCenturion
12-08-2016, 09:31 AM
I'm aware the power/energy is doubled at 3dB.
I was going after 'human perceived loudness'. 6dB or 10dB is often used for that, to indicate a doubling of perceived loudness.

Sidetrack: given that hearing damage is caused by straight input power, and that 'perceived loudness' is variable based on the person, best to go with the 3db.

To get this back on track, and to respond to a later post, yes, *some* guns are too dangerous for *some* people. Much like a person with a regular driver's license doesn't, or shouldn't, get to drive a motorcycle, an 18-wheeler, and so on, while I do believe that firearms ownership should be a positive right, i.e. you have it until you do something to lose it, there still needs to be some basic competency training of some sort. And I happen to prefer the 'license' model where you walk in, show your license, and that demonstrates that you haven't had the right taken away, rather than having background check run every time you choose to purchase, with the delays inherent in that. I feel like having your PAL application delayed for a month or three is far better than having every firearm purchase sit there for an extra week or two while the CFO gets around to running your background check yet again.

Yes, it would be lovely to leapfrog to a far saner system, but it ain't going to happen. It really does need to be small steps, with periods of normalization. Education will be the key; as is getting all over any misrepresentation of things; this can range from the media referring to something as an 'assault rifle' to the buddy who honestly, but without malice or fell intent, believes that the 'AR' in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle, to the crotchety old hunter who thinks that nobody should own a semi-auto rifle, let alone a 'military' semi-auto rifle, despite the fact that their .308Win deer rifle is an excellent sniper rifle, and so on.

Doug_M
12-08-2016, 09:42 AM
To get this back on track, and to respond to a later post, yes, *some* guns are too dangerous for *some* people. Much like a person with a regular driver's license doesn't, or shouldn't, get to drive a motorcycle, an 18-wheeler, and so on, while I do believe that firearms ownership should be a positive right, i.e. you have it until you do something to lose it, there still needs to be some basic competency training of some sort.

Well that is because you have been influenced, socially engineered if you will. We don't require such training or licensing for a myriad of other common objects that we can buy and use freely. A chainsaw comes top of mind. Is an axe safer? What about ladders? Should one require a safety course to use a 12 foot ladder? And before you answer with "but guns are more dangerous" or something like "the potential to accidentally kill someone else is..." I'll just say that the statistics throughout our history don't support that.

Now, I think training is good. But I don't think it needs to be compartmentalized into chunks of "least dangerous" to "most dangerous". In short (and I speak from experience with a wide variety of military weapons) if one learns and lives by:

1) all guns are always loaded
2) never point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy
3) finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4) know your target and beyond

then one can safely use ANY firearm, yup, including machine guns. And Canadians have done just that and not in the too distant past either.

glockfan
12-08-2016, 10:01 AM
You're not going to get ccw with guns in Canada ever.
30% of those on cgn don't even approve of it let alone the general media saturated population.
Check the ccw threads.
As for pepper spray we can carry it now as long as we say its for defense against aggressive dogs.

You want any more then better invent a political party that will support such a platform because none of the 4 liberal parties in existence today will.
Until then licensing and classifications are here to stay,

CGN...pfffft! please!! this place is full of sufficient cops and socialist fudds. not a surprise at all,and not a valid sampling of the population's opinion on this specific topic.

ask the lady who has been murdered by the foolish car robber couple days ago,and the man who's been killed by the same zombie some hours before.....that is the problem, here in canada , people are so coward, they can't picture themself defending their life, to scared and conditionned by the slow progressist brainwash ; facing a lethal threat , most canadians would rather put their head in the sand waiting for their death. easier than pulling a gun out to erase the threat like it should in a sane society where a victim has the full right to return a lethal threat against itself, which is absolutly normal and sane.

we're living in a country where the justice system need attackers and dead victims. a victim killing an attacker doesn't bring much money in the justice wheel, and i will alaways remeber that most politicians are lawyers ,then scamers, and we're living under their regime,and the canadian gunlaws are thought for their own benefits only, surely not in respect of our individual lifes.

Gunrunner
12-08-2016, 02:53 PM
CGN...pfffft! please!! this place is full of sufficient cops and socialist fudds. not a surprise at all,and not a valid sampling of the population's opinion on this specific topic.

ask the lady who has been murdered by the foolish car robber couple days ago,and the man who's been killed by the same zombie some hours before.....that is the problem, here in canada , people are so coward, they can't picture themself defending their life, to scared and conditionned by the slow progressist brainwash ; facing a lethal threat , most canadians would rather put their head in the sand waiting for their death. easier than pulling a gun out to erase the threat like it should in a sane society where a victim has the full right to return a lethal threat against itself, which is absolutly normal and sane.

we're living in a country where the justice system need attackers and dead victims. a victim killing an attacker doesn't bring much money in the justice wheel, and i will alaways remeber that most politicians are lawyers ,then scamers, and we're living under their regime,and the canadian gunlaws are thought for their own benefits only, surely not in respect of our individual lifes.
:agree:
And even then the Canadian legal system will charge the one who is defending his home and family.
The turdo I charter has also been a money tree for lawyers.
A system designed by and for and ran by slimy lawyers.

Stephen
12-08-2016, 03:17 PM
All this "noise" is just going to scare him away. Maybe keep all this babbling in another thread.

glockfan
12-08-2016, 07:21 PM
he's not going to get back at us till goodale plan see the light.

nuttbar51
12-08-2016, 07:41 PM
he's not going to get back at us till goodale plan see the light.
So... never then? Lol

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Gunrunner
12-08-2016, 09:30 PM
All this "noise" is just going to scare him away. Maybe keep all this babbling in another thread.

Noise and babbling?
Oh you mean the truth?
That not a single one of the CPC leadership candidates intends to repeal c68 or classifications or give us any kind of concealed carry weapon privileges to protect life against people despite what they say?
I think most of us with a modicum of intelligence and common sense are fully aware of that.
The first credible candidate who makes a sincere offer of a firearms program that is honest, truthful and deliverable will get the nod from gun owners.
Still waiting.

Edward Teach
12-09-2016, 12:19 AM
I'm mildly curious to know what the candidate has to say about What Ezra Levant said concerning the recent protest in Edmonton.


https://youtu.be/INSYNEuGoas

glockfan
12-09-2016, 12:54 AM
Noise and babbling?
Oh you mean the truth?
That not a single one of the CPC leadership candidates intends to repeal c68 or classifications or give us any kind of concealed carry weapon privileges to protect life against people despite what they say?
I think most of us with a modicum of intelligence and common sense are fully aware of that.
The first credible candidate who makes a sincere offer of a firearms program that is honest, truthful and deliverable will get the nod from gun owners.
Still waiting.

the only way to get C68 crashed is asking a reform, but to achieves this we must be all united ....and of course, since classification is what divide us, it'll never happen.

if only the hunters felt concerned.....but no. ''''there's no need for restricted since hunting can be done successfully with single shot rifles'''''.

that's how it is, and i know it from 1st hand experience......working years in an outdoor range taught me something ; hunters won't care ever about target shooters and the restricted crowd.

Gunrunner
12-09-2016, 04:44 AM
the only way to get C68 crashed is asking a reform, but to achieves this we must be all united ....and of course, since classification is what divide us, it'll never happen.

if only the hunters felt concerned.....but no. ''''there's no need for restricted since hunting can be done successfully with single shot rifles'''''.

that's how it is, and i know it from 1st hand experience......working years in an outdoor range taught me something ; hunters won't care ever about target shooters and the restricted crowd.

And 1,2 or 3 non-restricted gun owners mostly hunters (often called "fudds") comprise the vast majority of Canadian gun owners.
They wouldn't care if handguns and ARs were banned tomorrow.
Like I said ... these guys would be happy with the status quo.
If one of the leadership candidates would promise to gag the annoying, quite useless and embarrassing RCMP and kick it back into its corner to lick its nuts and leave everything else the same as it is now the vast majority of Canadian gun owners would support him/her.

Gunrunner
12-09-2016, 05:13 AM
the only way to get C68 crashed is asking a reform, but to achieves this we must be all united ....and of course, since classification is what divide us, it'll never happen

Good, bad or indifferent this is the truth.
We need to stop wishing for Charlton Heston to come out of the clouds with the staff of Moses in his hands to make things right.
We gotta learn to live and work with what we got.
What we got: There's not a single fudd who's gonna shed a single tear when the last handgun or AR goes into the melting pot.
Calling the fudds names until the air turns blue won't change that.
Fair? Nope! But life isn't fair.
The handgun, AR and 12-x prohib owners will be taking one for the team like it or not.
Time to move on.

Doug_M
12-09-2016, 05:46 AM
I'm mildly curious to know what the candidate has to say about What Ezra Levant said concerning the recent protest in Edmonton.

And you know, because we saw it of the past decade, that if they had been chanting about some Conservative politician it wouldn't have even made the news. Right or wrong isn't really even the issue, rather it is the faux outrage.

TheCenturion
12-09-2016, 08:43 AM
Well that is because you have been influenced, socially engineered if you will. We don't require such training or licensing for a myriad of other common objects that we can buy and use freely. A chainsaw comes top of mind. Is an axe safer? What about ladders? Should one require a safety course to use a 12 foot ladder? And before you answer with "but guns are more dangerous" or something like "the potential to accidentally kill someone else is..." I'll just say that the statistics throughout our history don't support that.

Now, I think training is good. But I don't think it needs to be compartmentalized into chunks of "least dangerous" to "most dangerous". In short (and I speak from experience with a wide variety of military weapons) if one learns and lives by:

1) all guns are always loaded
2) never point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy
3) finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4) know your target and beyond

then one can safely use ANY firearm, yup, including machine guns. And Canadians have done just that and not in the too distant past either.

I have people working for me who have absolutely been ladder trained and certified, and wouldn't be allowed on certain job sites if they weren't. I have a grandmother who lopped off most of her thumb with an axe when she was a teenager.

The thing with ladders and axes is, if you're being an idiot with one, you're likely going to hurt yourself. If you're being an idiot with a gun, you're likely going to hurt somebody else.

Let me turn the question around: Driving is straightforward. "All cars are running. Never point the car at something you're unwilling to run into. Foot off the accelerator until you're ready to accelerate. Know what's in front of you, and the road beyond.' Do we now not need drivers training?

lone-wolf
12-09-2016, 11:53 AM
I don't like 12ft ladders

Foxer
12-09-2016, 12:16 PM
Well that is because you have been influenced, socially engineered if you will. We don't require such training or licensing for a myriad of other common objects that we can buy and use freely. A chainsaw comes top of mind. Is an axe safer? What about ladders? Should one require a safety course to use a 12 foot ladder? And before you answer with "but guns are more dangerous" or something like "the potential to accidentally kill someone else is..." I'll just say that the statistics throughout our history don't support that.

Now, I think training is good. But I don't think it needs to be compartmentalized into chunks of "least dangerous" to "most dangerous". In short (and I speak from experience with a wide variety of military weapons) if one learns and lives by:

1) all guns are always loaded
2) never point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy
3) finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4) know your target and beyond

then one can safely use ANY firearm, yup, including machine guns. And Canadians have done just that and not in the too distant past either.

C'mon doug, we've been over this a hundred times. You fall off a ladder, you kill yourself. That's your choice. You misuse a chainsaw and you cut your own arm off. That's your choice. When they start building 12 foot ladders that can accidentally 'go off' and kill the neighbour, then yeah - safe bet it will be regulated.

Meanwhile i don't see you suggesting that we should stop manditory training for cars - i mean are they REALLY more dangerous than chainsaws and ladders? I'm all for training but i say just let people buy a car and use it however they like and figure out the rules as they go... :)

That whole argument is just ridiculous. To the degree that people's actions have the ability to negatively harm others we regulate to reasonably reduce the likelyhood of that happening. Always been that way.

Of more interest is the question of whether or not some guns are 'more dangerous' than others. Honestly - i just don't see it. A person who is safe with a shotgun should also be safe with a pistol.

The challenge for us is that the antis play on the idea of 'potential for misuse'. They would argue that if a pistol was STOLEN or if the owner became mentally deficient and decided to kill people, that the handgun has the 'potential' to do more harm because it's easier to sneak into places etc, and the machine gun can kill more people with one pull of the trigger, etc etc. So if bad guys get those guns, or good guys become bad guys, then they will be able to create much more slaughter than if they had other guns.

Frankly - I have serious doubts about this as well. But - that's the issue we've got to address with the public, because as long as they believe that line then there will be support for making SOME guns 'more illegal' than others.

Doug_M
12-09-2016, 12:20 PM
I have people working for me who have absolutely been ladder trained and certified, and wouldn't be allowed on certain job sites if they weren't. I have a grandmother who lopped off most of her thumb with an axe when she was a teenager.

The thing with ladders and axes is, if you're being an idiot with one, you're likely going to hurt yourself. If you're being an idiot with a gun, you're likely going to hurt somebody else.

Let me turn the question around: Driving is straightforward. "All cars are running. Never point the car at something you're unwilling to run into. Foot off the accelerator until you're ready to accelerate. Know what's in front of you, and the road beyond.' Do we now not need drivers training?

I don't need to be ladder trained and certified, nor does my neighbour. Nor does any Canadian who wants to own a ladder for their own use. Same with axes and chainsaws. As for "idiot with a gun. you're likely to hurt somebody else", as I said earlier the statistics just don't bear that out, which is why I told you not to bother using it as an argument in the first place.

Your car example is laughable. There are far more skills and rules of the road to learn. However, anyone can drive off-road without a license, and many do in quads and on motorcycles.

From http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p6.html


Over the last few decades, the rate of unintentional firearm deaths in Canada and most other industrialized countries has been declining steadily. In Canada, that decline actually began in the 1950s, and was particularly evident in the 1960s and early 1970s

Safety is important. But it need not be a scheme like what you proposed. Organizations like the CSSA can do enough to promote safety through their own education programs as can local groups, associations and clubs. And that model worked in the past. Anyone here with kids I can guarantee you is going to teach their kids firearms safety first and foremost. It is human nature to do so. We don't need government compartmentalizing firearms by some arbitrary means and creating bureaucracies around safety training for each grouping.

Doug_M
12-09-2016, 12:23 PM
C'mon doug, we've been over this a hundred times.

Please, just because we've been over it doesn't mean anymore than a handful here agreed with you on your safety points. "accidentally kill someone" is akin to "think of the children". No one is buying it.

lone-wolf
12-09-2016, 12:27 PM
Safety is important. But it need not be a scheme like what you proposed. Organizations like the CSSA can do enough to promote safety through their own education programs as can local groups, associations and clubs. And that model worked in the past. Anyone here with kids I can guarantee you is going to teach their kids firearms safety first and foremost. It is human nature to do so. We don't need government compartmentalizing firearms by some arbitrary means and creating bureaucracies around safety training for each grouping.

Big thumbs up Doug.

Foxer
12-09-2016, 12:29 PM
Please, just because we've been over it doesn't mean anymore than a handful here agreed with you on your safety points. "accidentally kill someone" is akin to "think of the children". No one is buying it.

Oh for gods sake - you know, for a guy who's at least half assed smart most of the time, you can sure make some dense statements. There's no 'agreeing' - that IS out tradition going back to the beginning of canada. Period. It's history. And only a moron would suggest that somehow there IS no difference between something that can kill you and something that might kill others. That again isn't an 'opinion', that IS a real actual difference.

If what you're saying is that demonstrable facts and actual history are not to your liking and you prefer self delusion and ignorance, well nobody is going to stop you. Hell we live in a country where a lot of people decided trudeau would be a pretty good idea, so CLEARLY its no crime to ignore basic common sense and fact. But don't try to somehow sell it as "MY" points, and don't try to sell it as 'think of the children". If we are THAT stupid, then the anti's will eat us alive. Truth is about the only thing we have going for ourselves.

Doug_M
12-09-2016, 01:09 PM
Oh for gods sake - you know, for a guy who's at least half assed smart most of the time, you can sure make some dense statements. There's no 'agreeing' - that IS out tradition going back to the beginning of canada. Period. It's history. And only a moron would suggest that somehow there IS no difference between something that can kill you and something that might kill others. That again isn't an 'opinion', that IS a real actual difference.

If what you're saying is that demonstrable facts and actual history are not to your liking and you prefer self delusion and ignorance, well nobody is going to stop you. Hell we live in a country where a lot of people decided trudeau would be a pretty good idea, so CLEARLY its no crime to ignore basic common sense and fact. But don't try to somehow sell it as "MY" points, and don't try to sell it as 'think of the children". If we are THAT stupid, then the anti's will eat us alive. Truth is about the only thing we have going for ourselves.

Perhaps your dyslexia has gotten the better of you, but I'd remind you we are talking about mandatory training, not training in general FFS. And get off your "I'm the smartest" high horse, because it is more like a shetland pony some days.

To satisfy (or crush) my ego, and to re-rail this thread, I've created a new thread on mandatory training here: http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?35737-Safety-training-mandatory-or-not-you-tell-me

TheCenturion
12-09-2016, 01:12 PM
Your car example is laughable. There are far more skills and rules of the road to learn. However, anyone can drive off-road without a license, and many do in quads and on motorcycles.


And there's a lot more skills to firearms ownership than just 'treat it as loaded, don't point it at not-targets, booger hook off the bang switch.'

All I'm saying is that a 19 year old probably shouldn't be allowed to walk in off the street and buy a full auto machine gun without going through some sort of proof of competency. I have no issue with challenging the competency requirement, whatever, though I do think there should be more training available.

And yeah, before 'mandatory' safety training, you were far more likely to receive said training anyway, back when firearms were far more commonplace, and chances are Dad or Uncle Bob or somebody was a vet.

Gunrunner
12-09-2016, 02:17 PM
Perhaps your dyslexia has gotten the better of you, but I'd remind you we are talking about mandatory training, not training in general FFS. And get off your "I'm the smartest" high horse, because it is more like a shetland pony some days.

To satisfy (or crush) my ego, and to re-rail this thread, I've created a new thread on mandatory training here: http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?35737-Safety-training-mandatory-or-not-you-tell-me

http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq209/Left4Dead/Beatup2.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Left4Dead/media/Beatup2.gif.html)
A CHYT KICKING

Bob123
12-09-2016, 06:39 PM
I worked with your cousin Erin. She always bragged about how great a man you are. I hope that you're not one of Harper's puppets and you'll actually get something done for us.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Gunrunner
12-09-2016, 08:46 PM
I worked with your cousin Erin. She always bragged about how great a man you are. I hope that you're not one of Harper's puppets and you'll actually get something done for us.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn052welcomewagon.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/theogrit/media/sign%20or%20English%20smilies/2sgn052welcomewagon.gif.html)
Don't jump on the BS wagon promising the sun, the moon and the stars to gun owners like some of the other candidates ... promise what you can realistically deliver.

UCSPanther
12-09-2016, 09:25 PM
This thread is a dumpster fire...

Zinilin
12-09-2016, 10:03 PM
This thread is a dumpster fire...

I'm Erin O'Toole, a candidate for CPC leader, and these are my firearms platitudes.
Discuss them amongst yourselves, I'm out of here.

PS.
.. Just send tens and twenty's, all I want is what's coming to me, all I want is my fair share....

ErinOTooleCPC
12-10-2016, 10:08 AM
Hello Gun Owners of Canada

I just wanted to check in and hope you had a chance to watch the second leadership debate earlier this week. I am just finishing up my tour of the Maritimes and wanted to answer some of the most common questions I see in this thread and on the campaign trail re: firearms before I head home.

This is a long leadership race. I understand many of you are still making up your mind. I'm not a one issue candidate and will be releasing a number of bold policies on other issues in the next few weeks. The anchoring theme is going to be cleaning up Ottawa and focussing on ideas that create prosperity and opportunity at home.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals want you to believe this is good as things get. I'm not resigned to a Canada in decline. We need to hand off our country to our kids in better shape than we found it. That's how it's always been done in Canada. If you like what you've been hearing from me, please consider purchasing a membership at www.erinotoole.ca/join

---

Do you think Canada’s existing gun laws need to be rewritten?

Canada is a nation with proud rural and outdoor traditions. Learning to hunt or target shoot with a family member is a way of life for millions of Canadians and must be respected. Firearm owners, be they hunters, farmers or sport shooters are among the most law-abiding citizens in Canada.

As Prime Minister, I will end the politicization of firearms and roll back measures that have no impact on public safety. Within 180 days of forming government, I will overhaul the classification system, with manufacturers and firearm owners involved in the process, to ensure that it is clear, fair and has law-abiding firearm owners directly involved in the process.

Should the RCMP continue to be the body in charge of firearms regulation in Canada?

I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to Canadians. I will also mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions

Do you think self-defense is a legitimate reason for firearms possession?

Canadians have many reasons to own firearms. I don’t believe that it is the government’s place to decide which reasons are okay as long as they are lawful.

It is important for the resources of the federal government to be focussed on criminals engaged in the trafficking and use of illegal firearms instead of imposing more layers of bureaucracy on law-abiding Canadians. That’s why I support specialized illegal firearms enforcement led by the CBSA and RCMP working closely with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, to target smuggling operations before illegal firearms reach the border.

Do you believe the AR-15 should remain restricted?

I believe that the current classification system needs to be re-examined. I’ll commission an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement. It is essential that these decisions are made by firearms experts based on facts, not politics.

Will you commit to removing sound suppressors from the prohibited devices list? Further to that, what are your thoughts around magazine size restrictions?

Magazine size restrictions are a perfect example of arbitrarily imposed and poorly worded regulations. The criminalization of law abiding owners of 10/22 magazines is just the latest example. The classification system needs to be re-examined through an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement.

Will you commit to ensure that no existing non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms or devices would be classified as prohibited under your leadership?

I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are accountable to Canadians. A cabinet under my leadership would look with great scepticism at any arbitrary recommendations for further prohibition.

How do we protect property rights, especially when it pertains to firearms?

Firearms owners are amongst the most law abiding Canadians and that is ignored by the Liberals and many in the media. Seizing the property of law abiding citizens in the name of public safety is both wrong and ineffective for public safety. By engaging manufacturers and users in the classification process and putting final authority for classification decisions back in the hands of cabinet we will ensure that property rights of owners are respected.

GaryCaine
12-10-2016, 10:42 AM
Hello Gun Owners of Canada

I just wanted to check in and hope you had a chance to watch the second leadership debate earlier this week. I am just finishing up my tour of the Maritimes and wanted to answer some of the most common questions I see in this thread and on the campaign trail re: firearms before I head home.

This is a long leadership race. I understand many of you are still making up your mind. I'm not a one issue candidate and will be releasing a number of bold policies on other issues in the next few weeks. The anchoring theme is going to be cleaning up Ottawa and focussing on ideas that create prosperity and opportunity at home.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals want you to believe this is good as things get. I'm not resigned to a Canada in decline. We need to hand off our country to our kids in better shape than we found it. That's how it's always been done in Canada. If you like what you've been hearing from me, please consider purchasing a membership at www.erinotoole.ca/join

---

Do you think Canada’s existing gun laws need to be rewritten?

Canada is a nation with proud rural and outdoor traditions. Learning to hunt or target shoot with a family member is a way of life for millions of Canadians and must be respected. Firearm owners, be they hunters, farmers or sport shooters are among the most law-abiding citizens in Canada.

As Prime Minister, I will end the politicization of firearms and roll back measures that have no impact on public safety. Within 180 days of forming government, I will overhaul the classification system, with manufacturers and firearm owners involved in the process, to ensure that it is clear, fair and has law-abiding firearm owners directly involved in the process.

Should the RCMP continue to be the body in charge of firearms regulation in Canada?

I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to Canadians. I will also mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions

Do you think self-defense is a legitimate reason for firearms possession?

Canadians have many reasons to own firearms. I don’t believe that it is the government’s place to decide which reasons are okay as long as they are lawful.

It is important for the resources of the federal government to be focussed on criminals engaged in the trafficking and use of illegal firearms instead of imposing more layers of bureaucracy on law-abiding Canadians. That’s why I support specialized illegal firearms enforcement led by the CBSA and RCMP working closely with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, to target smuggling operations before illegal firearms reach the border.

Do you believe the AR-15 should remain restricted?

I believe that the current classification system needs to be re-examined. I’ll commission an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement. It is essential that these decisions are made by firearms experts based on facts, not politics.

Will you commit to removing sound suppressors from the prohibited devices list? Further to that, what are your thoughts around magazine size restrictions?

Magazine size restrictions are a perfect example of arbitrarily imposed and poorly worded regulations. The criminalization of law abiding owners of 10/22 magazines is just the latest example. The classification system needs to be re-examined through an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement.

Will you commit to ensure that no existing non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms or devices would be classified as prohibited under your leadership?

I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are accountable to Canadians. A cabinet under my leadership would look with great scepticism at any arbitrary recommendations for further prohibition.

How do we protect property rights, especially when it pertains to firearms?

Firearms owners are amongst the most law abiding Canadians and that is ignored by the Liberals and many in the media. Seizing the property of law abiding citizens in the name of public safety is both wrong and ineffective for public safety. By engaging manufacturers and users in the classification process and putting final authority for classification decisions back in the hands of cabinet we will ensure that property rights of owners are respected.

You stated a few times that the classification system needs to re-examined.

At the policy convention we voted to adopt the Simplified Classification System.

Why won't you commit to adopting it?

GaryCaine
12-10-2016, 10:47 AM
I did make a small donation while I'm waiting for a commitment on the Simplified Classification System

JustBen
12-10-2016, 10:55 AM
I really expected more than a copy/paste of the Calibre interview.

The candidate repeated says that firearm laws and classification needs to be reexamined. If you read through the 150 posts here, we already know that! We've suggested very concrete things we want to see.

1. AR-15 turned back to non restricted
2. Magazine limits abolished
3. Sound suppressors no longer prohibited

We've gotten zero commitment to any of the above. The firearms community deserves better than that.

glockfan
12-10-2016, 10:59 AM
'''reexamined'''' meanings is: maybe, maybe not .....

CLW .45
12-10-2016, 11:09 AM
Translation - the system is fine, but we will tweak it to make you feel better.

The system is designed to disarm you.

Nothing fine about that.

Move along folks, nothing to see here. Pity!

glockfan
12-10-2016, 11:47 AM
far from any commitement .

and i bet the reason is, the rest of the party won't stay in line with what could be viewed as drastic changes , which is something politicians are always afraid of.......

TJSpeller
12-10-2016, 12:30 PM
You stated a few times that the classification system needs to re-examined.

At the policy convention we voted to adopt the Simplified Classification System.

Why won't you commit to adopting it?

I think this is a fair question. There has been far too much hyperventilating on this thread, but the Simplified Classification System is part of the official CPC policy document, on a policy that was approved in Vancouver by practically 100% of the delegates in the room at the time. It is not asking too much for a leadership candidate to commit to the official party position. If we can't even get that, stated clearly and simply, then...

FlyingHigh
12-10-2016, 12:40 PM
Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers. While I appreciate you voicing your support, as gun owners we want commitment.

You'll forgive us if we seem demanding and unpleasable, however we are REALLY tired of hearing things like "we'll look into it", "we'll examine it", "we'll form a committee etc". I'm sure you've been paying attention to world politics. You'll notice there is a push by the common people against the political elite. Brexit, Trump etc. People are sick and tired of the status quo and the hollow words and empty promises of politicians who do nothing but piss away tax dollars and fatten their own wallets. Will YOU commit to being different than them? Action. Not words.

These are the only parts of your post that shows any form of direction and even they are relatively vague:


As Prime Minister, I will end the politicization of firearms and roll back measures that have no impact on public safety. Within 180 days of forming government, I will overhaul the classification system, with manufacturers and firearm owners involved in the process, to ensure that it is clear, fair and has law-abiding firearm owners directly involved in the process.

HOW will you overhaul the classification system?


I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to Canadians. I will also mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions

Are you therefore committing to remove classification ability from the RCMP?

Everything else you've said is

Let's make this easy. If you would like clarification on each issue, please ask before answering. Otherwise, Yes or No answers only:

1. Will you commit to the Simplified Classification System? Yes or No.

2. Will you commit to derestricting the AR15? Yes or No.

3. Will you commit to legalizing the use of sound suppressors? Yes or No.

4. Will you commit to removing magazine capacity limits? Yes or No.

5. Will you commit to permitting the use of handguns for hunting and wilderness protection? Yes or No.

6. Will you commit to eliminating the much abused position of Chief Firearms Officer? Yes or No.

7. Will you commit to removing from the RCMP the ability to classify firearms once and for all? Yes or No.


Once again, I reiterate; We want a politician we can work WITH not for. We want COMMITMENT, not vague ideas. We want ACTION, not excuses.

Thank you again for taking the time to show your support for Canadian firearms owners. I truly hope we can look forward to working with you to make these commitments a reality.

In order to get things off on the right foot, I officially extend to you the following offer: Should you ever find yourself in Grande Prairie, AB send me a private message. I COMMIT to meeting with you personally and discussing these matters face to face, point by point.

FlyingHigh
12-10-2016, 12:41 PM
Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers. While I appreciate you voicing your support, as gun owners we want commitment.

You'll forgive us if we seem demanding and unpleasable, however we are REALLY tired of hearing things like "we'll look into it", "we'll examine it", "we'll form a committee etc". I'm sure you've been paying attention to world politics. You'll notice there is a push by the common people against the political elite. Brexit, Trump etc. People are sick and tired of the status quo and the hollow words and empty promises of politicians who do nothing but piss away tax dollars and fatten their own wallets. Will YOU commit to being different than them? Action. Not words.

These are the only parts of your post that shows any form of direction and even they are relatively vague:


As Prime Minister, I will end the politicization of firearms and roll back measures that have no impact on public safety. Within 180 days of forming government, I will overhaul the classification system, with manufacturers and firearm owners involved in the process, to ensure that it is clear, fair and has law-abiding firearm owners directly involved in the process.

HOW will you overhaul the classification system?


I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to Canadians. I will also mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions

Are you therefore committing to remove classification ability from the RCMP?

Everything else you've said is very broad and noncommittal. You didn't even address the question asked of suppressors despite answering the first part of it regarding magazine capacity limits.

Let's make this easy. If you would like clarification on each issue, please ask before answering. Otherwise, Yes or No answers only:

1. Will you commit to the Simplified Classification System? Yes or No.

2. Will you commit to derestricting the AR15? Yes or No.

3. Will you commit to legalizing the use of sound suppressors? Yes or No.

4. Will you commit to removing magazine capacity limits? Yes or No.

5. Will you commit to permitting the use of handguns for hunting and wilderness protection? Yes or No.

6. Will you commit to eliminating the much abused position of Chief Firearms Officer? Yes or No.

7. Will you commit to removing from the RCMP the ability to classify firearms once and for all? Yes or No.


Once again, I reiterate; We want a politician we can work WITH not for. We want COMMITMENT, not vague ideas. We want ACTION, not excuses.

Thank you again for taking the time to show your support for Canadian firearms owners. I truly hope we can look forward to working with you to make these commitments a reality.

In order to get things off on the right foot, I officially extend to you the following offer: Should you ever find yourself in Grande Prairie, AB send me a private message. I COMMIT to meeting with you personally and discussing these matters face to face, point by point.

GaryCaine
12-10-2016, 12:42 PM
I think this is a fair question. There has been far too much hyperventilating on this thread, but the Simplified Classification System is part of the official CPC policy document, on a policy that was approved in Vancouver by practically 100% of the delegates in the room at the time. It is not asking too much for a leadership candidate to commit to the official party position. If we can't even get that, stated clearly and simply, then...

As far as I know Steven Blaney is the only candidate who has stated he will adopt the Simplified Classification System.

He has also not taking any heat from the media over his stance.

I'm still deciding who to vote for and this is one of the issues I'm looking at

GaryCaine
12-10-2016, 12:47 PM
Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers. While I appreciate you voicing your support, as gun owners we want commitment.

You'll forgive us if we seem demanding and unpleasable, however we are REALLY tired of hearing things like "we'll look into it", "we'll examine it", "we'll form a committee etc". I'm sure you've been paying attention to world politics. You'll notice there is a push by the common people against the political elite. Brexit, Trump etc. People are sick and tired of the status quo and the hollow words and empty promises of politicians who do nothing but piss away tax dollars and fatten their own wallets. Will YOU commit to being different than them? Action. Not words.

These are the only parts of your post that shows any form of direction and even they are relatively vague:



HOW will you overhaul the classification system?



Are you therefore committing to remove classification ability from the RCMP?

Everything else you've said is

Let's make this easy. If you would like clarification on each issue, please ask before answering. Otherwise, Yes or No answers only:

1. Will you commit to the Simplified Classification System? Yes or No.

2. Will you commit to derestricting the AR15? Yes or No.

3. Will you commit to legalizing the use of sound suppressors? Yes or No.

4. Will you commit to removing magazine capacity limits? Yes or No.

5. Will you commit to permitting the use of handguns for hunting and wilderness protection? Yes or No.

6. Will you commit to eliminating the much abused position of Chief Firearms Officer? Yes or No.

7. Will you commit to removing from the RCMP the ability to classify firearms once and for all? Yes or No.


Once again, I reiterate; We want a politician we can work WITH not for. We want COMMITMENT, not vague ideas. We want ACTION, not excuses.

Thank you again for taking the time to show your support for Canadian firearms owners. I truly hope we can look forward to working with you to make these commitments a reality.

In order to get things off on the right foot, I officially extend to you the following offer: Should you ever find yourself in Grande Prairie, AB send me a private message. I COMMIT to meeting with you personally and discussing these matters face to face, point by point.

If he adopts The simplified Classification System point 2 will be taken care of

GaryCaine
12-10-2016, 12:52 PM
From the CSSA website at https://cssa-cila.org/2016/05/team-cssa-e-news-may-29-2016/

* Editor's note: Thank you to all the people that participated in making this happen and a special shout-out to Richard Wakefield, Phil O'Dell, Dan Fritter, TJ Speller, CSSA's Mike Duynhoven, Garry Breitkreuz and Tony B, Chris Youngson, John Hipwell, the Rebel's Brian Lilley and Faith Goldy, and of course, MPs Bob Zimmer, Steven Blaney, Larry Miller, Bob Sopuck, Blaine Calkins, Candice Bergan, Cathay Wagantall, Erin O'Toole and Colin Carrie. To the many other people who helped make this happen, please know your efforts were valued and very appreciated

FlyingHigh
12-10-2016, 12:52 PM
If he adopts The simplified Classification System point 2 will be taken care of

Agreed. However, it's a very major point that sport shooters in Canada want dealt with and I believe it deserves it's own individual commitment. As well, it's a hot button item. Anti-gun organizations will go ballistic (pardon the pun) if the AR15 is derestricted. To commit to doing so, will be a major act of courage and show true solidarity to Canadian gun owners.

Gunrunner
12-10-2016, 01:14 PM
Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers. While I appreciate you voicing your support, as gun owners we want commitment.

You'll forgive us if we seem demanding and unpleasable, however we are REALLY tired of hearing things like "we'll look into it", "we'll examine it", "we'll form a committee etc". I'm sure you've been paying attention to world politics. You'll notice there is a push by the common people against the political elite. Brexit, Trump etc. People are sick and tired of the status quo and the hollow words and empty promises of politicians who do nothing but piss away tax dollars and fatten their own wallets. Will YOU commit to being different than them? Action. Not words.

These are the only parts of your post that shows any form of direction and even they are relatively vague:



HOW will you overhaul the classification system?



Are you therefore committing to remove classification ability from the RCMP?

Everything else you've said is very broad and noncommittal. You didn't even address the question asked of suppressors despite answering the first part of it regarding magazine capacity limits.

Let's make this easy. If you would like clarification on each issue, please ask before answering. Otherwise, Yes or No answers only:

1. Will you commit to the Simplified Classification System? Yes or No.

2. Will you commit to derestricting the AR15? Yes or No.

3. Will you commit to legalizing the use of sound suppressors? Yes or No.

4. Will you commit to removing magazine capacity limits? Yes or No.

5. Will you commit to permitting the use of handguns for hunting and wilderness protection? Yes or No.

6. Will you commit to eliminating the much abused position of Chief Firearms Officer? Yes or No.

7. Will you commit to removing from the RCMP the ability to classify firearms once and for all? Yes or No.


Once again, I reiterate; We want a politician we can work WITH not for. We want COMMITMENT, not vague ideas. We want ACTION, not excuses.

Thank you again for taking the time to show your support for Canadian firearms owners. I truly hope we can look forward to working with you to make these commitments a reality.

In order to get things off on the right foot, I officially extend to you the following offer: Should you ever find yourself in Grande Prairie, AB send me a private message. I COMMIT to meeting with you personally and discussing these matters face to face, point by point.

You're definitely Flying High if you expect even one of the leadership candidates to reply honestly to the questions let alone implement them as a future PM.
You won't even get an affirmative from the so-called Canadian gun owners on all those points.


Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers. While I appreciate you voicing your support, as gun owners we want commitment.

Don't hold your breath. No CPC candidate will give you what you want as it is not the parties platform. You're trying to pump oil from a water well.

CLW .45
12-10-2016, 01:52 PM
You're definitely Flying High if you expect even one of the leadership candidates to reply honestly to the questions let alone implement them as a future PM.
You won't even get an affirmative from the so-called Canadian gun owners on all those points.



Don't hold your breath. No CPC candidate will give you what you want as it is not the parties platform. You're trying to pump oil from a water well.

Low expectations, guarantee little in the way of results.

glockfan
12-10-2016, 02:58 PM
Agreed. However, it's a very major point that sport shooters in Canada want dealt with and I believe it deserves it's own individual commitment. As well, it's a hot button item. Anti-gun organizations will go ballistic (pardon the pun) if the AR15 is derestricted. To commit to doing so, will be a major act of courage and show true solidarity to Canadian gun owners.

we need someone to explain an AR is no different than a browning bar we can see everywhere in the bush in the hunting season gosh.....it's like saying katleen wynn is a women because she wears women cloths. an AR is an AR because it wears some tactical clothing, but apart of the piston and gas system, at the end of the day only five rounds enters in the mag and the rate of fire is about the same as a well tuned BBAR or any other semi auto .

i can't accept the AR as restricted because it wears some tacticool parts which has little to no effect on the number or rounds it can spit .



As far as I know Steven Blaney is the only candidate who has stated he will adopt the Simplified Classification System.

He has also not taking any heat from the media over his stance.

I'm still deciding who to vote for and this is one of the issues I'm looking at

if the other candidate keeps going on displaying this ridiculous and tiedous statu quo on the senseless firearm act , many will cast for BLANEY . after couple weeks of personal reflection on that matter, no wonder BLANEY is my horse.

lone-wolf
12-10-2016, 03:05 PM
Canadians have many reasons to own firearms. I don’t believe that it is the government’s place to decide which reasons are okay as long as they are lawful.

Then why do we need a classification system?

CLW .45
12-10-2016, 03:55 PM
Then why do we need a classification system?

Only one reason.

To keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them - the people of Canada!

How wrong is that?

88 louie
12-10-2016, 05:13 PM
Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers. While I appreciate you voicing your support, as gun owners we want commitment.

You'll forgive us if we seem demanding and unpleasable, however we are REALLY tired of hearing things like "we'll look into it", "we'll examine it", "we'll form a committee etc". I'm sure you've been paying attention to world politics. You'll notice there is a push by the common people against the political elite. Brexit, Trump etc. People are sick and tired of the status quo and the hollow words and empty promises of politicians who do nothing but piss away tax dollars and fatten their own wallets. Will YOU commit to being different than them? Action. Not words.

These are the only parts of your post that shows any form of direction and even they are relatively vague:



HOW will you overhaul the classification system?



Are you therefore committing to remove classification ability from the RCMP?

Everything else you've said is very broad and noncommittal. You didn't even address the question asked of suppressors despite answering the first part of it regarding magazine capacity limits.

Let's make this easy. If you would like clarification on each issue, please ask before answering. Otherwise, Yes or No answers only:

1. Will you commit to the Simplified Classification System? Yes or No.

2. Will you commit to derestricting the AR15? Yes or No.

3. Will you commit to legalizing the use of sound suppressors? Yes or No.

4. Will you commit to removing magazine capacity limits? Yes or No.

5. Will you commit to permitting the use of handguns for hunting and wilderness protection? Yes or No.

6. Will you commit to eliminating the much abused position of Chief Firearms Officer? Yes or No.

7. Will you commit to removing from the RCMP the ability to classify firearms once and for all? Yes or No.


Once again, I reiterate; We want a politician we can work WITH not for. We want COMMITMENT, not vague ideas. We want ACTION, not excuses.

Thank you again for taking the time to show your support for Canadian firearms owners. I truly hope we can look forward to working with you to make these commitments a reality.

In order to get things off on the right foot, I officially extend to you the following offer: Should you ever find yourself in Grande Prairie, AB send me a private message. I COMMIT to meeting with you personally and discussing these matters face to face, point by point.

Outstanding post. Those 7 question should be put forward to all of the candidates.
Only then would we be able to choose the horse that best suits our desired results, in the current leadership race.

Gunrunner
12-10-2016, 08:42 PM
Low expectations, guarantee little in the way of results.

Not saying I wouldn't like more but reality has to creep in at some point in the equation.

Part of reality is how much support do we really have especially for the handgun stuff.
Was at a Thanksgiving dinner at a friends house in 2013.
We were watching TV after an excellent meal of moose meat and the wild turkey he shot the same fall.
In response to a gun incident on the news in which a kid got shot he said "If they would ban all those frigging handguns then we wouldn't be taking the heat for all this crap".
I almost fell off the chair where I was sitting. This from a guy that owns half a dozen rifles and that many shotguns.
Kinda gives you and idea what we're up against with the fudds.

There are a lot of hunters I've met and hunted with that have similar views on handguns and ARs.
The politicians want to attract the hunters some of us call fudds not scare them away as they are the large majority.
Its all about numbers.

Yah, I'd like more (much more) but I'd also like a Lotto 649 win so I can get my dream cabin in Alaska where I could walk around strapped all day long far away from stupid Liberals, CFOs and the RCMP.
Chances of the Lotto 649 win and getting all we want from the CPC or any other Canadian political party are about the same.
Most of these politicians will tell you just about anything to keep the fairy tale alive and the cheques rolling in.
The one that levels with us and tells the truth about what he and his party can realistically deliver will get my support.
I'm still waiting.

Gunrunner
12-10-2016, 09:16 PM
Sorry Erin, I'm seeing alot of politician vague-speak and no answers.

No shyt ... get used to it.
All I got from the ones I wrote to was "politician vague-speak and no answers" and/or a regurgitation of c19 like it was just passed yesterday.

CLW .45
12-10-2016, 10:48 PM
Not saying I wouldn't like more but reality has to creep in at some point in the equation.

Part of reality is how much support do we really have especially for the handgun stuff.
Was at a Thanksgiving dinner at a friends house in 2013.
We were watching TV after an excellent meal of moose meat and the wild turkey he shot the same fall.
In response to a gun incident on the news in which a kid got shot he said "If they would ban all those frigging handguns then we wouldn't be taking the heat for all this crap".
I almost fell off the chair where I was sitting. This from a guy that owns half a dozen rifles and that many shotguns.
Kinda gives you and idea what we're up against with the fudds.

There are a lot of hunters I've met and hunted with that have similar views on handguns and ARs.
The politicians want to attract the hunters some of us call fudds not scare them away as they are the large majority.
Its all about numbers.

Yah, I'd like more (much more) but I'd also like a Lotto 649 win so I can get my dream cabin in Alaska where I could walk around strapped all day long far away from stupid Liberals, CFOs and the RCMP.
Chances of the Lotto 649 win and getting all we want from the CPC or any other Canadian political party are about the same.
Most of these politicians will tell you just about anything to keep the fairy tale alive and the cheques rolling in.
The one that levels with us and tells the truth about what he and his party can realistically deliver will get my support.
I'm still waiting.

Support. Wouldn't it be wonderful? There's a song with that lyric.

We can use the support we don't have as an excuse, or we can work with the support we have, and build more by explaining the facts of life to our ignorant brethren.

Ignorant, that means unaware of the facts. Not stupid, not uncaring, just unaware.

Gunrunner
12-11-2016, 12:24 AM
Outstanding post. Those 7 question should be put forward to all of the candidates.
Only then would we be able to choose the horse that best suits our desired results, in the current leadership race.

Talk is cheap.
Blaney is the only one that has actually been put to the test as public safety minister.
OK he BSed a bit (if he indeed made the promise)... he won't give us the simplified classification system.
The 12x guns are still destined for the smelter ... none of the candidates if successful will change that.
But I think a Blaney CPC government will leave us alone and keep the RCMP off of our cases.
Best real choice so far.
Does he have a good chance of beating turdo in 2019 ... NOPE ... but neither do any of the others and nobody believes any of their new found love of firearms ... 100% crap.

CLW .45
12-11-2016, 12:30 AM
Talk is cheap.
Blaney is the only one that has actually been put to the test as public safety minister.
OK he BSed a bit (if he indeed made the promise)... he won't give us the simplified classification system.
The 12x guns are still destined for the smelter ... none of the candidates if successful will change that.
But I think a Blaney CPC government will leave us alone and keep the RCMP off of our cases.
Best real choice so far.
Does he have a good chance of beating turdo in 2019 ... NOPE ... but neither do any of the others and nobody believes any of their new found love of firearms ... 100% crap.

You forgot one thing.

The goal of the law is to disarm you. That means the bolt, lever, and break actions will be going to the smelter as well.

Gunrunner
12-11-2016, 01:04 AM
You forgot one thing.

The goal of the law is to disarm you. That means the bolt, lever, and break actions will be going to the smelter as well.
I realize that. It is what c68 was intended to do and thanks to the colleagues of the CPC leadership candidates blowing all the pro gun steam on this board now c68 is still around.
But it won't get that far in our lifetimes.
They still hunt with single shot break open actions, bolts, lever actions in the UK and I think that is the model turdo is planning to emulate.
I am a member of a couple of UK shooting/hunting forums and there are still lots of guns over there.
And Britain is mostly urban while much of Canada is still rural.
And in Canada we have the Indians ... nobody is taking their guns.
The typical Canadian gun owner is a tough talker not a doer ... their gonads are way too small ... lost faith in their BS decades ago.
But there will still be privately owned firearms in Canada as long as the First Nations are around because they have big brass ones and they'll be around for a long time yet.

CLW .45
12-11-2016, 01:57 AM
I realize that. It is what c68 was intended to do and thanks to the colleagues of the CPC leadership candidates blowing all the pro gun steam on this board now c68 is still around.
But it won't get that far in our lifetimes.
They still hunt with single shot break open actions, bolts, lever actions in the UK and I think that is the model turdo is planning to emulate.
I am a member of a couple of UK shooting/hunting forums and there are still lots of guns over there.
And Britain is mostly urban while much of Canada is still rural.
And in Canada we have the Indians ... nobody is taking their guns.
The typical Canadian gun owner is a tough talker not a doer ... their gonads are way too small ... lost faith in their BS decades ago.
But there will still be privately owned firearms in Canada as long as the First Nations are around because they have big brass ones and they'll be around for a long time yet.

You may be right. Quite the turn around. Disarm the cowboys, and leave the Indians armed.

Yep. I can see that happening, and I don't see the Liberals having any problem at all with it.

ilikemoose
12-11-2016, 02:16 AM
I think Mr O'Toole has left the building.

Gunrunner
12-11-2016, 02:35 AM
I think Mr O'Toole has left the building.

He was so impressed with us he probably has gone to join the NFA.

Gunrunner
12-12-2016, 10:31 PM
You may be right. Quite the turn around. Disarm the cowboys, and leave the Indians armed.

Yep. I can see that happening, and I don't see the Liberals having any problem at all with it.

They won't mess with the Indians who have shown they have big brass balls.
Don't see a First Nations gripe forum online.
Probably because the Indians deal with stuff in reality where it counts.
Canadian gun owners sit on their wallets bsing, blustering & bellyaching on the gun forums at and to each other ... a tempest in a tea pot.
They whined and cried for years after High River yet not a single civil lawsuit filed ... oh I forgot ... that costs money.
And the Canadian shooting rights orgs can barely pay their utility bills and are rendered impotent because of lack of support.
No wonder nobody important takes gun owners seriously.


I think Mr O'Toole has left the building.

O'Toole has probably got us accurately sized up now as irrelevant ... likely won't be back.

blacksmithden
12-12-2016, 11:34 PM
Well...my unasked question was answered loud and clear by his lack of any kind of a solid response. More talk of passing the buck onto some future, to be formed, committee is just more of what we've been fed for far too long. To be blunt, I get the clear impression that this guy is just another politician looking for votes, and not a politician who's looking to help us in any real tangible way. As of right now Steven Blaney has my vote. Thank you for your time Mr Otoole, but I don't think you're the person we were hoping you would be.

Steveo9mm
12-12-2016, 11:46 PM
Well...my unasked question was answered loud and clear by his lack of any kind of a solid response. More talk of passing the buck onto some future, to be formed, committee is just more of what we've been fed for far too long. To be blunt, I get the clear impression that this guy is just another politician looking for votes, and not a politician who's looking to help us in any real tangible way. As of right now Steven Blaney has my vote. Thank you for your time Mr Otoole, but I don't think you're the person we were hoping you would be.

we need Trump

CLW .45
12-13-2016, 12:12 AM
They won't mess with the Indians who have shown they have big brass balls.
Don't see a First Nations gripe forum online.
Probably because the Indians deal with stuff in reality where it counts.
Canadian gun owners sit on their wallets bsing, blustering & bellyaching on the gun forums at and to each other ... a tempest in a tea pot.
They whined and cried for years after High River yet not a single civil lawsuit filed ... oh I forgot ... that costs money.
And the Canadian shooting rights orgs can barely pay their utility bills and are rendered impotent because of lack of support.
No wonder nobody important takes gun owners seriously.



O'Toole has probably got us accurately sized up now as irrelevant ... likely won't be back.


Are we irrelevant to the O'Toole campaign?

Perhaps. There are two basic themes on this thread.

- We would like something good, and we like what you are saying, so you have our support.

- We want something substantial, convince us you understand why and will give us something, and we may support you.

The first are irrelevant, because he has their support. They are bought and paying for it.

The second are irrelevant if he has no intention of doing anything substantial, or if he is unable to make a convincing statement. No matter his reason, our support won't be there.

Either way, we cease to be relevant, and are a waste of his time and effort.

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 05:37 AM
Well...my unasked question was answered loud and clear by his lack of any kind of a solid response. More talk of passing the buck onto some future, to be formed, committee is just more of what we've been fed for far too long. To be blunt, I get the clear impression that this guy is just another politician looking for votes, and not a politician who's looking to help us in any real tangible way. As of right now Steven Blaney has my vote. Thank you for your time Mr Otoole, but I don't think you're the person we were hoping you would be.

:agree:
Will a Blaney government give us ccw, handgun hunting? - ABSOLUTELY NOT !
Will a Blaney government repeal c68? - NOPE !
Will a Blaney government repeal Section 12 and give us the simplified classification system for firearms? - NOPE, that was bullchyt
will a Blaney government remove the moratorium on section 12 prohibs? - NOPE !, they'll still be earmarked for the smelter
Will a Blaney government leave us alone and keep the RCMP out of our faces and gun safes? - I think so
I'm with Blaney - the best REAL offer so far with a shaky but proven track record of not being anti gun. Notice I didn't say he was pro gun because he isn't. He's gun tolerant.

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 05:51 AM
Those who are looking for ccw, handgun hunting, the castle doctrine, machine gun ownership need to be looking at real estate in one of the pro gun states in the US of A.
It's possible in Canada but we don't have the balls or the solidarity to make it happen.
There comes a time when you have to face the truth like a 100 ton locomotive coming full throttle down the tracks at us.
It is what it is.

RealDeckard
12-13-2016, 06:08 AM
All candidates need to get over themselves and the need to 'take it under advisement.' Our terms for substantial support are 'in plain sight.'

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 06:25 AM
I'm not in the market for a pack of lies.
When I see red tories putting on pro gun airs I know another snow job is in the works.
The CPC has my vote in 2019 but sorry, I won't be making a grab for my pen & cheque book.
Don't listen to the shills ... they're on the job.

JustBen
12-13-2016, 06:27 AM
All candidates need to get over themselves and the need to 'take it under advisement.' Our terms for substantial support are 'in plain sight.'

It's really that simple, but it appears that nobody understands that.

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 07:07 AM
No chest thumping here. But you just told a leadership candidate that he can continue the system that is cheating my grandchildren out of their inheritance. And their's is chump change compared to many others.

And you are happy, as long as you get to keep your toys.

And to hell with the next group of women who will be dealing bare handed with an armed killer, while waiting for the cops to show up and take custody of their corpses.

Disgusting!

I lived in the states for years and see nothing wrong with the things you want ... carry concealed weapon, repeal c68, repeal firearms classification section 12 and get the 12x prohibs off of death row, handgun hunting, castle doctrine etc. etc. etc.
What you need to do is start a political party that will include those things in its platform and still be electable east of the Manitoba border. The CPC is not that party.
Any of the leadership candidates who promise such things are full of it. It is not the party policy. The CPC is essentially another species of liberal party.
If you want to be aggressive and confrontational vector your aggression in a constructive manner.
Pointing the finger at me is not going to get you what you want.
Get mad and confrontational at the politicians not me.

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 07:18 AM
Originally Posted by RealDeckard
All candidates need to get over themselves and the need to 'take it under advisement.' Our terms for substantial support are 'in plain sight.'


It's really that simple, but it appears that nobody understands that.

I still haven't figured out who OUR is.
If you read this forum and cgn there is a wide spectrum of support for things like repeal c68, ccw, licensing, section 12, handguns, ARs.
The "no compromisers" call the other half "fudds" and vice versa ... there is no united front.
That's the whole problem.
There is no OUR.
For example a lot of gun owners are in full support of c68, licensing, testing and do not support ccw.
OUR is a fiction.

RealDeckard
12-13-2016, 07:29 AM
No it isn't. The 'fudd' stance is status quo. That's not much of a position. I can say that the restoration of our rights to equal those of every other citizens is worthwhile position. This isn't a Santa list. It's about justice and equality. And ideally not being a criminal for made up 'crimes.'

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 08:18 AM
Originally Posted by ErinOTooleCPC
Hello Gun Owners of Canada

I just wanted to check in and hope you had a chance to watch the second leadership debate earlier this week. I am just finishing up my tour of the Maritimes and wanted to answer some of the most common questions I see in this thread and on the campaign trail re: firearms before I head home.

This is a long leadership race. I understand many of you are still making up your mind. I'm not a one issue candidate and will be releasing a number of bold policies on other issues in the next few weeks. The anchoring theme is going to be cleaning up Ottawa and focussing on ideas that create prosperity and opportunity at home.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals want you to believe this is good as things get. I'm not resigned to a Canada in decline. We need to hand off our country to our kids in better shape than we found it. That's how it's always been done in Canada. If you like what you've been hearing from me, please consider purchasing a membership at www.erinotoole.ca/join

---

Do you think Canada’s existing gun laws need to be rewritten?

Canada is a nation with proud rural and outdoor traditions. Learning to hunt or target shoot with a family member is a way of life for millions of Canadians and must be respected. Firearm owners, be they hunters, farmers or sport shooters are among the most law-abiding citizens in Canada.

As Prime Minister, I will end the politicization of firearms and roll back measures that have no impact on public safety. Within 180 days of forming government, I will overhaul the classification system, with manufacturers and firearm owners involved in the process, to ensure that it is clear, fair and has law-abiding firearm owners directly involved in the process.

Should the RCMP continue to be the body in charge of firearms regulation in Canada?

I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are directly accountable to Canadians. I will also mandate a return to the 180-day period for the re-designed classification system to release firearm import decisions

Do you think self-defense is a legitimate reason for firearms possession?

Canadians have many reasons to own firearms. I don’t believe that it is the government’s place to decide which reasons are okay as long as they are lawful.

It is important for the resources of the federal government to be focussed on criminals engaged in the trafficking and use of illegal firearms instead of imposing more layers of bureaucracy on law-abiding Canadians. That’s why I support specialized illegal firearms enforcement led by the CBSA and RCMP working closely with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, to target smuggling operations before illegal firearms reach the border.

Do you believe the AR-15 should remain restricted?

I believe that the current classification system needs to be re-examined. I’ll commission an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement. It is essential that these decisions are made by firearms experts based on facts, not politics.

Will you commit to removing sound suppressors from the prohibited devices list? Further to that, what are your thoughts around magazine size restrictions?

Magazine size restrictions are a perfect example of arbitrarily imposed and poorly worded regulations. The criminalization of law abiding owners of 10/22 magazines is just the latest example. The classification system needs to be re-examined through an expert-driven redesign of firearm classification based on a clear legislative definition of the term “variant” in consultation with manufacturers, owners and law enforcement.

Will you commit to ensure that no existing non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms or devices would be classified as prohibited under your leadership?

I believe that the final authority for classification decisions should be the cabinet. It is essential that these important decisions are made by people who are accountable to Canadians. A cabinet under my leadership would look with great scepticism at any arbitrary recommendations for further prohibition.

How do we protect property rights, especially when it pertains to firearms?

Firearms owners are amongst the most law abiding Canadians and that is ignored by the Liberals and many in the media. Seizing the property of law abiding citizens in the name of public safety is both wrong and ineffective for public safety. By engaging manufacturers and users in the classification process and putting final authority for classification decisions back in the hands of cabinet we will ensure that property rights of owners are respected.


You stated a few times that the classification system needs to re-examined.

At the policy convention we voted to adopt the Simplified Classification System.

Why won't you commit to adopting it?

Lots of hay and not to many needles in all that verbiage in O'Tooles post.
Big on feel good blah blah blah and low on solid commitment.
Not impressed.

**that policy convention was another feel good theatrical farce :rolleyes:

CLW .45
12-13-2016, 12:58 PM
I lived in the states for years and see nothing wrong with the things you want ... carry concealed weapon, repeal c68, repeal firearms classification section 12 and get the 12x prohibs off of death row, handgun hunting, castle doctrine etc. etc. etc.
What you need to do is start a political party that will include those things in its platform and still be electable east of the Manitoba border. The CPC is not that party.
Any of the leadership candidates who promise such things are full of it. It is not the party policy. The CPC is essentially another species of liberal party.
If you want to be aggressive and confrontational vector your aggression in a constructive manner.
Pointing the finger at me is not going to get you what you want.
Get mad and confrontational at the politicians not me.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. I'd suggest you retreat to a safe space, but don't see any indication that you are a precious snowflake.

Now you are saying you support what I, and others, have been pushing for.

But, don't believe the CPC will give us squat.

But, they have your vote in any event, if not your labour and money.

And, we should all just fold our tents and go home.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

No thanks.

I will continue to push the leadership candidates, the CPC, the Liberals, the NDP, Greens, media, and anyone who will listen. Push for substantial change.

And, when your comments or anyone's comments, are disgusting - I will say so.

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 02:16 PM
But, don't believe the CPC will give us squat.

But, they have your vote in any event, if not your labour and money.

So are you saying I shouldn't vote for the CPC?
If that's what your saying then state that.

They have Ontario and Quebec to please if they ever want to form another government and that puts severe contraints on how pro-gun their election platform can be before they start shedding support and votes east of Manitoba. That's the reality of the situation.

If you have a suggestion on who we should vote for then I'm all ears.
I'd just love for there to be a pro-gun political party in Canada with a chance of winning enough seats to form the next government but unless something changed last night there isn't one.

I'm actually voting against the LPC and NDP when I cast my vote for the CPC.
The CPC doesn't get any donation of labor or money from me because if they support me half ass then I'll support them half ass.

CLW .45
12-13-2016, 07:37 PM
So are you saying I shouldn't vote for the CPC?
If that's what your saying then state that.

They have Ontario and Quebec to please if they ever want to form another government and that puts severe contraints on how pro-gun their election platform can be before they start shedding support and votes east of Manitoba. That's the reality of the situation.

If you have a suggestion on who we should vote for then I'm all ears.
I'd just love for there to be a pro-gun political party in Canada with a chance of winning enough seats to form the next government but unless something changed last night there isn't one.

I'm actually voting against the LPC and NDP when I cast my vote for the CPC.
The CPC doesn't get any donation of labor or money from me because if they support me half ass then I'll support them half ass.

I've likely said it before. I will support the CPC when they convince me that they will make substantial change(s) to the firearms act. Same goes for a leadership candidate.

Support includes vote, volunteer, donate or any one or more of the same.

If they are unable to convince me, for any reason, I will vote for the best candidate in my riding no matter what his party.

I don't consider offering your vote to any party, when you are looking for something from them, to be a particularly bright idea unless you have good reason to expect to get it. Your vote is the most important commodity you have, that can be exchanged for what you want.

Go ahead and tell them they have it, no matter what, and you are likely to get nothing for it.

Right, that is precisely what you have done. And at the same time, you are telling us we can expect nothing from CPC.

Tell me, how is that different from what the shills are telling us?

It all boils down to, "Vote CPC because the others will screw you more."

Screwed is screwed!

JustBen
12-13-2016, 08:55 PM
I like Blaney's answers to the questions better, but I have my doubts about the guy. He had lots of opportunities to make things work while he was Minister of Public Safety...

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 10:25 PM
I've likely said it before. I will support the CPC when they convince me that they will make substantial change(s) to the firearms act. Same goes for a leadership candidate.

Support includes vote, volunteer, donate or any one or more of the same.

If they are unable to convince me, for any reason, I will vote for the best candidate in my riding no matter what his party.

I don't consider offering your vote to any party, when you are looking for something from them, to be a particularly bright idea unless you have good reason to expect to get it. Your vote is the most important commodity you have, that can be exchanged for what you want.

Go ahead and tell them they have it, no matter what, and you are likely to get nothing for it.

Right, that is precisely what you have done. And at the same time, you are telling us we can expect nothing from CPC.

Tell me, how is that different from what the shills are telling us?

It all boils down to, "Vote CPC because the others will screw you more."

Screwed is screwed!

Fair enough, after this I will follow your advice and vote for the best candidate regardless of political party because all the CPC leadership candidates are giving us is feel good generalizations and hot air.
The party leader as PM will be the one that steers policy not some firearms doctrine on paper signed years before and buried under layers of dust in a file cabinet.
Sounds to me that the CPC red tories have no plans of repealing c68 or doing anything major for gun owners.
The majority Liberal regime we are under now is the result of such an alternative voting strategy.
But at least to your credit you provide an alternate strategy to voting for the CPC.
There are 1 or 2 others on this board who constantly implied that voting CPC made us puppets on a string but just as consistently refused to suggest an alternative voting strategy when queried.
My handguns have been legally exported to the home of kin in New Hampshire for a couple of years so I don't have a lot to lose. I just have 3 non-restricted hunting guns left in Canada.
In 10 years we will have our honor and integrity of not being CPC puppets on a string but a lot fewer guns and more restrictions but thanks for the suggestion.
From now on I'll do it your way.

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 10:47 PM
I like Blaney's answers to the questions better, but I have my doubts about the guy. He had lots of opportunities to make things work while he was Minister of Public Safety...
:agree:
He's the best we got right now for gun owners.
That unfortunately sets the bar pretty low on what we can expect from a future CPC government.
Maybe if we don't feel the CPC has earned our vote we can use the alternative voting strategy discussed previously and vote for the LPC or NDP candidate if he has nice hair.

Sinbad
12-13-2016, 10:52 PM
I appreciate you coming on and making yourself known to gun owners and no disrespect intended but I don't use Facebook never will and your link to your cover page that says you are the only candidate with a detailed firearms policy.
It looks pretty vague could please elaborate as to what your detailed plan is?

Tell me you can get rid of the hated bill C 68 you be the gun owners hero

Gunrunner
12-13-2016, 10:58 PM
I appreciate you coming on and making yourself known to gun owners and no disrespect intended but I don't use Facebook never will and your link to your cover page that says you are the only candidate with a detailed firearms policy.
It looks pretty vague could please elaborate as to what your detailed plan is?

Tell me you can get rid of the hated bill C 68 you be the gun owners hero

:popcorn:

CLW .45
12-17-2016, 04:01 PM
Just received from Erin.




CLW .45 --

Reality TV star and American resident Kevin O'Leary just insulted every Canadian who fought and died for us in war.

He actually said that Canadian soldiers should never be deployed in war because "there's nothing proud about being a warrior."

He couldn't be more wrong.

I am proud of all of those that risked and gave their lives for our rights and freedoms.

I am proud to have served in the Canadian Armed Forces myself.

I am proud to live in a country with a strong record of military success against foes who wished to harm us.

As a Canadian and a veteran myself, I find his comments disturbing.

As a Conservative, I find them concerning.

Here's why:

Kevin O'Leary wants to lead the Conservative Party of Canada.

And he could win.

He has the financial resources to do it.

If he wins, he’ll cut the military more than the Liberals, risk our reputation and shatter our national defence capability.

We need to stop him.

Will you support me in doing that? Please donate now and purchase a membership so you can vote for me for Leader of our party.

We cannot let Kevin O'Leary, who opposes our military and insults our soldiers, win. Help me fight back and beat him.


Erin


Replied.



Erin,

Yes, that was certainly an insult.

Just as much as it is an insult to all Canadians, including soldiers, to require them to demonstrate "need" to a bureaucrat, in order to carry or even possess restricted firearms/prohibited handguns to protect life (Firearms Act, sections 20 and 28).

Just as much as it is an insult to all Canadians, including soldiers, to tell them that some firearms are just too dangerous for them to have (Criminal Code 84(1) prohibited firearm).

Just as much as it is an insult to all Canadians, including soldiers, to criminalize their use, carriage and possession of firearms, unless they possess a temporary get out of jail card (Criminal Code 85 through 95, although this is not exhaustive).

An insult of the highest order violating, as it does, the right to arms recognized from ancient times. With the exception of governments at enmity with the people whose representatives they purport to be, this inherent right has flourished.

Mr. O'Leary is simply attempting to position himself with those who have, since early in the last century, held the rights of Canadians in the utmost disdain. And continue to do so to this day.

Shameful,

CLW .45

Petamocto
12-17-2016, 06:14 PM
I am seriously floored by those last anti-warrior comments. I was already leaning against him for his anti-AR comments, but those recent comments about Canadian soldiers being meant for peace keeping and not for war have infuriated me like few other statements I have ever heard.

I am normally relatively benign on my Facebook wall because I want it to mean something when I actually care, and as a result of these anti-warrior comments I have basically sworn a jihad against Kevin O'Leary, and I will do whatever I can to ensure he never gets elected as an MP, let alone a cabinet position, or PM.

I honestly hate these statements enough that if I were in his riding I would vote for another party even though I an Conservative through and through.

Kevin O'Leary, you seriously deserve a punch in the face. I'm not saying I'd do it, and I'm not inciting others to do it, but merely that you deserve it. I would pay a large amount of money on Pay Per View to see someone punch you square in the face as hard as they can so I could see it in slow motion.

I'm not offering violence on you, because I am a peaceful person, but that does not mean I would not enjoy seeing Cam Chancellor tackle you at a sprint.

You have literally offended millions of Canadians who have given their lives, limbs, and minds, and you taking a punch in the face is 1% of the pain of what they have suffered for you, to have you belittle them.

Billythreefeathers
12-17-2016, 06:22 PM
I am seriously floored by those last anti-warrior comments. I was already learning against him for his anti-AR comments, but those recent comments about Canadian soldiers being meant for peace keeping and not for war have infuriated me like few other statements I have ever heard.

I am normally relatively benign on my Facebook wall because I want it to mean something when I actually care, and as a result of these anti-warrior comments I have basically sworn a jihad against Kevin O'Leary, and I will do whatever I can to ensure he never gets elected as an MP, let alone a cabinet position, or PM.

I honestly hate him so much as a result of these statements that if I were in his riding I would vote for another party even though I an Conservative through and through.

Kevin O'Leary, you seriously deserve a punch in the face. I'm not saying I'd do it, and I'm not inciting others to do it, but merely that you deserve it. You are such a terrible person that I would pay a large amount of money on Pay Per View to see someone punch you square in the face as hard as they can so I could see it in slow motion.

I'm not offering violence on you, because I am a peaceful person, but that does not mean I would not enjoy seeing Cam Chancellor tackle you at a sprint.

he needs to be outed by Soldiers and gun owners alike,,

can't believe that much stupid in one person

lone-wolf
12-17-2016, 10:37 PM
Kevin doesn't have one redeeming quality that isn't embodied already in a much better candidate(s).

LB303
12-17-2016, 11:09 PM
I've been reading a fair bit of reaction, none of it favourable, to McDuck's latest quackery. The bit about Remembrance Day will surely ruffle a lot of feathers. Speaking for myself, he can F right off. Here's hoping it wrecks any chance of him attaining political office.

CLW .45
12-21-2016, 01:40 AM
Just received.



CLW .45 --

Brave men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to protect us and defend our freedom.

What we owe to them is very simple – to recognize and fulfill our promise to take care of them if they are injured in the service of our country, and to help them and their families transition back to civilian life when their service is completed.

Over the next few days, I’ll be sharing my plan to stand up for Veterans and to ensure our country keeps its promise.

Today, the Toronto Sun published my commentary on the importance of supporting Veterans and honouring our warriors. You can read it here: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/19...hose-who-serve

If you want to help me keep Canada’s promise to our Veterans, I need you to renew or purchase a Conservative Party of Canada membership and support our campaign. Please also consider donating $20 or more to help us reach Canadians.

Warm regards,


Hon. Erin O'Toole, P.C., C.D., M.P.


Replied.



Erin,

It is common for me to encounter veterans who ask, "why must I convince some bureaucrat of my need to own or carry a handgun to protect life, before I can be authorized to do so?

Who ask, "why can't I own my father's police service revolver, or my uncle's HK91 rifle?"

Who ask, "why can I be sent to prison if my firearms licence expires?"

The simple answer? Really bad law!

More to the point, the CPC didn't fix that law when they had a majority. In fact, not only did they not fix it, when they did make a minor change by adding a six month grace period, on licence expiry - they couldn't be bothered to bring it into force before the election.

After hearing those answers, just how much faith are they to have in your commitment to stand by them? Stand by them as soldiers, and stand by them as firearm owners.

Is your pride in them real? Or just virtue signalling?

CLW .45

Gunrunner
12-21-2016, 02:08 AM
CLW .45 --

Brave men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to protect us and defend our freedom.

What we owe to them is very simple – to recognize and fulfill our promise to take care of them if they are injured in the service of our country, and to help them and their families transition back to civilian life when their service is completed.

Over the next few days, I’ll be sharing my plan to stand up for Veterans and to ensure our country keeps its promise.

Today, the Toronto Sun published my commentary on the importance of supporting Veterans and honouring our warriors. You can read it here: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/19...hose-who-serve

If you want to help me keep Canada’s promise to our Veterans, I need you to renew or purchase a Conservative Party of Canada membership and support our campaign. Please also consider donating $20 or more to help us reach Canadians.

Warm regards,


Hon. Erin O'Toole, P.C., C.D., M.P.



Nice dodge of the whole firearms issue Erin. :rolleyes:
http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af290/MacksKaraokePlace/Buttons/click_button_red_md_wht.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/MacksKaraokePlace/media/Buttons/click_button_red_md_wht.gif.html)
Don't forget to click
the $20 button

murph83
12-21-2016, 06:47 PM
We all want the same thing, I personally believe that these rules\laws should never have been written...but here we are. Let not kid ourselves, we all know that not a single politician is going to give us the YES\NO answers we want. Stop bullsh&tting yourselves into trying to believe that any politician will ever publicly declare any of the things we want will come to bear. I know, you all know it, ya'll can babble on and on all you want, O'toole and the rest of them straight up don't give a shit!! If you think I'm joking, go back and re-read O'tooles responses thus far. Politics is a goddamn game folks, it's all about who can spew the bullsh*t best...and how many dummies will believe it.

Gunrunner
12-21-2016, 07:53 PM
We all want the same thing, I personally believe that these rules\laws should never have been written...but here we are. Let not kid ourselves, we all know that not a single politician is going to give us the YES\NO answers we want. Stop bullsh&tting yourselves into trying to believe that any politician will ever publicly declare any of the things we want will come to bear. I know, you all know it, ya'll can babble on and on all you want, O'toole and the rest of them straight up don't give a shit!! If you think I'm joking, go back and re-read O'tooles responses thus far. Politics is a goddamn game folks, it's all about who can spew the bullsh*t best...and how many dummies will believe it.

:agree:
Eureka ... he's got it!

CLW .45
12-21-2016, 10:09 PM
We all want the same thing, I personally believe that these rules\laws should never have been written...but here we are. Let not kid ourselves, we all know that not a single politician is going to give us the YES\NO answers we want. Stop bullsh&tting yourselves into trying to believe that any politician will ever publicly declare any of the things we want will come to bear. I know, you all know it, ya'll can babble on and on all you want, O'toole and the rest of them straight up don't give a shit!! If you think I'm joking, go back and re-read O'tooles responses thus far. Politics is a goddamn game folks, it's all about who can spew the bullsh*t best...and how many dummies will believe it.

Okay. So you think we should just roll over and take what we get? Enjoy it while we can? Grit our teeth through the pain?

Feel free!

In the meantime, I'll tell the politicians what I want, and what it will take to get my support.

murph83
12-21-2016, 10:24 PM
Okay. So you think we should just roll over and take what we get? Enjoy it while we can? Grit our teeth through the pain?

Feel free!

In the meantime, I'll tell the politicians what I want, and what it will take to get my support.

Look man, I agree with you, you and I both know that the politicians don't really give a shit about what "we " want. I know it, you know it. I never once said we should grit our teeth and bear it, you can read whatever the hell you want into my comment..I don't give a shit. I'm speaking the truth....many people hate the truth.Politics is a game, a race if you will...pick a horse, stfu, and see if your horse wins.

Edward Teach
12-22-2016, 01:15 AM
They can pretend to care about my rights, and I can pretend to care about their laws.

Steveo9mm
12-22-2016, 01:43 AM
They can pretend to care about my rights, and I can pretend to care about their laws.

what rights, we have rights?

lone-wolf
12-22-2016, 01:48 AM
what rights, we have rights?

You don't even have the right to remain silent.
But the thing that's better than rights, is ability.

Gunrunner
12-22-2016, 04:02 AM
what rights, we have rights?

"Might makes right" ... Otto Von Bismarck

In other words gun owners have the rights they are willing to stand up and fight for and defend.
In America the American constitution was birthed in blood and the 2nd amendment has been staunchly defended and even expanded by successive generations of American gun owners and several notable shooting orgs like the NRA & GOA.

In contrast the Canadian historical narrative is a dismal succession of defeats and surrenders c51, c17, c68, PQ bill 9, PQ bill 64.
The only confrontation I ever observed in Canada was silly, juvenile bickering among the gun owners themselves on gun forums rather than a united front effort against anti-gun politicians and organizations as was the case in the United States.

Like a bunch of pre-schoolers in a sandbox. :rolleyes:

Gunrunner
12-22-2016, 10:10 AM
We all want the same thing, I personally believe that these rules\laws should never have been written...but here we are. Let not kid ourselves, we all know that not a single politician is going to give us the YES\NO answers we want. Stop bullsh&tting yourselves into trying to believe that any politician will ever publicly declare any of the things we want will come to bear. I know, you all know it, ya'll can babble on and on all you want, O'toole and the rest of them straight up don't give a shit!! If you think I'm joking, go back and re-read O'tooles responses thus far. Politics is a goddamn game folks, it's all about who can spew the bullsh*t best...and how many dummies will believe it.
:agree:

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk261/morettaj/emoticons/225.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/morettaj/media/emoticons/225.gif.html)
"And don't forget the $20 contribution"
:rolleyes:

Gunrunner
12-22-2016, 10:27 AM
Okay. So you think we should just roll over and take what we get? Enjoy it while we can? Grit our teeth through the pain?

Feel free!

In the meantime, I'll tell the politicians what I want, and what it will take to get my support.

I was a card carrying full member of Mannings Reform Party and the Alliance but grew more and more disenchanted as Harper bit by bit transformed the conservatives back into the old PC Party of Brian Mulroney. I wrote literally tons of letters back those days.
Now there are no real political choices in Canada any more.
The political parties are ostensibly different on the outside but under the hood they are all Liberal.
Might as well stay home on election day.

88 louie
12-22-2016, 01:24 PM
We all want the same thing, I personally believe that these rules\laws should never have been written...but here we are. Let not kid ourselves, we all know that not a single politician is going to give us the YES\NO answers we want. Stop bullsh&tting yourselves into trying to believe that any politician will ever publicly declare any of the things we want will come to bear. I know, you all know it, ya'll can babble on and on all you want, O'toole and the rest of them straight up don't give a shit!! If you think I'm joking, go back and re-read O'tooles responses thus far. Politics is a goddamn game folks, it's all about who can spew the bullsh*t best...and how many dummies will believe it.
You may find an interview on CJ Summers facebook page quite interesting.
Meeting the Leadership Candidates: Guns and Politics - Pierre Lemieux
Sorry guys I cant copy it here, & It is not posted on this site in Calibers magazine thread.
He is the only one, so far as I know, that has answered yes & no, to the questions.

CLW .45
12-22-2016, 02:10 PM
I was a card carrying full member of Mannings Reform Party and the Alliance but grew more and more disenchanted as Harper bit by bit transformed the conservatives back into the old PC Party of Brian Mulroney. I wrote literally tons of letters back those days.
Now there are no real political choices in Canada any more.
The political parties are ostensibly different on the outside but under the hood they are all Liberal.
Might as well stay home on election day.


First party membership I held was Reform. As a member of the board of my constituency association, member of the firearms policy committee of the constituency association, and two time delegate to convention, I confirmed what I told my friend when he convinced me to join.

"This will turn out to be the PC's rebuild of their party."

But, I have children and grandchildren. My father fought, and was wounded, in the second war. He was adamant that we should endeavour to leave the world a better place than it was when we entered it.

How's that working out for us? Bloody awful in many ways.

But, damn it, I won't quit trying!

Rory McCanuck
12-22-2016, 04:16 PM
You don't even have the right to remain silent.
But the thing that's better than rights, is ability.

"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability."


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

lone-wolf
12-22-2016, 04:31 PM
haha ron white is great

GunGuy34
01-21-2017, 03:40 PM
There was briefly some confusion as to whether my account is official. It is indeed official, and the CGN admins worked with me to quickly resolve the confusion. Anyone who has doubts, including the admins of this forum, are welcome to direct message my verified Twitter or Facebook accounts.

I'm really happy with the discussion my post has generated. As promised, I will be answering the questions posed by the community within the next few days.

This same thread with the same stuff has been posted in a few places. Here, CGN, http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=308365 to name another.... All were posted saying the same stuff. As you can see above this is not CGN it was a copy and paste.

Everything he said in this thread is a copy and paste from what was on CGN.

Carguy2550
03-13-2017, 08:01 PM
I'm listening to an Erin O'Toole telephone town hall,right now, not impressed...really not impressed. Don't waste time rating this price of human garbage on your ballot.

If we get to my question about firearms I'll update this thread.

TJSpeller
03-13-2017, 08:09 PM
I'm listening to an Erin O'Toole telephone town hall,right now, not impressed...really not impressed. Don't waste time rating this price of human garbage on your ballot.

If we get to my question about firearms I'll update this thread.

Not sure why you're saying that.
I met him today at a local event, and he made a very good impression. He's a solid guy, not as flashy as Bernier, but probably more likely to deliver what he says.

Carguy2550
03-13-2017, 08:13 PM
Not sure why you're saying that.
I met him today at a local event, and he made a very good impression. He's a solid guy, not as flashy as Bernier, but probably more likely to deliver what he says.

I won't lie to ya. I'm a lot jaded after the tweet against Maxim Bermnier and the red pill incident. Also, I'm work to keep Calgary Heritage conservative. Along with Calgary Midnapore.

88 louie
03-13-2017, 08:23 PM
I'm listening to an Erin O'Toole telephone town hall,right now, not impressed...really not impressed. Don't waste time rating this price of human garbage on your ballot.

If we get to my question about firearms I'll update this thread.

Please do an update, my local MP said he is a stand up guy. I think he's just another politician, part of the old boys club.

Carguy2550
03-13-2017, 08:41 PM
He did get one question on firearms (not mine). The answer was a typical political answer designed not to freak out the sheep. Mostly just regurgitating talking points. Based on that I expect nothing useful of hopeful from him. Not that he could defeat junior without a major implosion on JTs part. Town hall is now over.

Yes he is part of the old boys club - self preservation all the way.