PDA

View Full Version : Did the a CCRF board member just go off the deep end?



enerflex
03-24-2017, 10:39 PM
OK, I can honestly say i'm not much of a political guy when it comes to Firearms Organizations anymore since the NFA went off the deep end.

But I did join the CCFR and the CSSA recently.

But then I saw this today trolling the internet.

Anyone know what the hell the CCFR is thinking allowing someone to post threats of violence as a board member??? I think this guy should be turfed ASAP!!!

I guess its over a meme and a reddit post thats at the link

https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/61cy4f/canadain_gun_advocates_that_support_gun_control/

2410
2411
2412

Waterloomike
03-24-2017, 10:48 PM
Is this supposed to be CCFR?'

That's a worse public display than even I would engage in.

Damn, that's 3x for the CCFR.

But I would still maintain that Rod is a good man for the cause.

Vetting, however, appears to be weak.

shootemup604
03-24-2017, 11:24 PM
It's a flimsy pretext, but the CFO could try to justify a prohibition based on this. Not smart.

GTW
03-24-2017, 11:39 PM
From the CCFR site:


https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/loberg-picture.jpgMichael Loberg
General Counsel

Michael Loberg is a commercial litigation lawyer and businessman in Calgary, Alberta and proud to be a Founding Director of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. Michael also serves as General Counsel to the CCFR. Michaelís background includes an honours degree in philosophy from the University of Calgary, with a thesis on Legal Rights and Morality, before going on to graduate from the University of Alberta Faculty of Law. Michael has been admitted as a Barrister & Solicitor in Alberta, an Attorney-at-Law in the Cayman Islands, and as a Solicitor of the High Court of England & Wales (now active in Alberta only). Michael began shooting in his youth and enjoys participating in and learning about all shooting sports to this day.

Hope this is a scam, we don't need this. Very disappointing if true.

Tactical870
03-24-2017, 11:41 PM
Everyone is entitled to a little frustration every now and then. Whoever made that meme is a pretty sorry excuse of a human being. Having worked alongside those 3, they have contributed more to this fight in the first month of the CCFR than most gun owners will in a lifetime. They certainly deserve more respect than this.

GTW
03-24-2017, 11:50 PM
Everyone is entitled to a little frustration every now and then. Whoever made that meme is a pretty sorry excuse of a human being. Having worked alongside those 3, they have contributed more to this fight in the first month of the CCFR than most gun owners will in a lifetime. They certainly deserve more respect than this.
Agreed, whoever made that meme is a sorry excuse for a human being. But Mr. Loberg sure rose to the bait like a trout to a fly and didn't do any one associated with the CCFR any favours. IMHO, he didn't do any CCFR member justice, if in fact this is an actual copy of a dialogue on social media. When will people realize tweeting or facebook is not your friend?

Tactical870
03-24-2017, 11:57 PM
Agreed, whoever made that meme is a sorry excuse for a human being. But Mr. Loberg sure rose to the bait like a trout to a fly and didn't do any one associated with the CCFR any favours. IMHO, he didn't do any CCFR member justice, if in fact this is an actual copy of a dialogue on social media. When will people realize tweeting or facebook is not your friend?

I've made my fair share of mistakes, and so have many of the people I've seen critical of Michael's comments. I think we need to remember we're all on the same side here. Eating our own is of no benefit to anyone.

GTW
03-25-2017, 12:09 AM
Eating our own is of no benefit to anyone.
I learned from bitter experience to wait 24 hrs to post a reply when something made me mad or someone baited me. Not trying to eat one of our own, and I am a CCFR member, but how much public support or empathy for gunowners do you think that diatribe by a Board member of the CCFR garnered? Talk about walking into Wendy's lap, she couldn't have hoped for a better response IMHO.

I repeat, disappointed. Too much good work by Rod & Tracy and all of the people volunteering can be undone by stupidity.

Tactical870
03-25-2017, 12:21 AM
I would also point out that at no point did his comment threaten actual violence. It essentially said he'd deal with him online, albeit in more glorious words. I've said worse.

Rory McCanuck
03-25-2017, 01:40 AM
I would also point out that at no point did his comment threaten actual violence. It essentially said he'd deal with him online, albeit in more glorious words. I've said worse.
Horseshit.

I'm going to f*** with them until their eyes bleed...
I'm going to rip his f***ing head off...
Vengeance.
Yeah, the guy's a clown making threats on the internet, all because his panties are twisted because of what someone said on the internet.

Doug_M
03-25-2017, 04:22 AM
Is this supposed to be CCFR?'

No, that is not. It is the Canada Guns sub Reddit and not a CCFR "place".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

JustBen
03-25-2017, 05:05 AM
He's a lawyer and supposedly posts this? Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Ruff
03-25-2017, 05:15 AM
Hmmm, someone was over-refreshed, looks like. However, since I would be blind after squinting through all the tiny print in the OP and therefore haven't read each and every post, I don't see that the guy identifies himself as a member of the org, nor that he implies threats using firearms. So I declare no big deal. If he in fact did do either it would be bad, both would be very bad.

amolkapoor
03-25-2017, 05:59 AM
Seems like a bunch of internet drivel, someone trying to discredit CCFR out of jealousy or misplaced anger. CCFR is doing a good job at educating the public about facts.

Petamocto
03-25-2017, 06:04 AM
Yes the man has done a lot for the firearms community, but that tantrum was pretty immature.

Threatening violence on the internet on a public forum, really?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of job-related consequences for that.

I'm not sure how lawyers police their own (?)

mtlgun
03-25-2017, 07:31 AM
I'm not sure what's worse. This guy having a public meltdown or the dozen or so people who egged him on. Didn't seem to be a single one who had the sense to call him out and try to stop the damage.

Another reason why I don't and probably never will support any of the supposed gun org's in this country.

LB303
03-25-2017, 08:37 AM
Loberg's posts (the ones I've read) have always been straight up factual and reasonable. Is there a chance his fb acct has been hacked?

Joshua13
03-25-2017, 09:18 AM
Everyone has seen the outcome of someone screwing up and posting online things that should not be. Most of the time it is teenagers, when it comes from someone in a position like his it has dire consequences for everyone associated with him. Hopefully this is a troll and if not someone better get on damage control quickly. We need to be above reproach in every situation.

Sent from my E6560T using Tapatalk

npicklyk
03-25-2017, 04:15 PM
OK, I can honestly say i'm not much of a political guy when it comes to Firearms Organizations anymore since the NFA went off the deep end.

But I did join the CCFR and the CSSA recently.

But then I saw this today trolling the internet.

Anyone know what the hell the CCFR is thinking allowing someone to post threats of violence as a board member??? I think this guy should be turfed ASAP!!!

I guess its over a meme and a reddit post thats at the link

https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/comments/61cy4f/canadain_gun_advocates_that_support_gun_control/

2410
2411
2412

As I see it, this is on a private facebook wall where the member posted on his PRIVATE wall. You would have to be his friend in order to see this. We all make comments at some point or another that we do regret. We also have to understand that we all make mistakes, and this was never a public post. I disagree with your thoughts on this as he was privately sharing his frustration. There were never any threats made on this thread.

I urge you all to take a minute and understand that EVERYONE makes mistakes. How do we learn if we never make mistakes. Posting this and publicly calling someone out for venting their frustrations about a callous meme that has zero merrit hardly classifies as "going off the deep end"

Grizz Axxemann
03-25-2017, 04:56 PM
Yeah. His private wall, let him say what he wants.

While I lump Lawyers, Politicians and sales types in the same bracket of bottom feeding scum, there are good ones out there (Loberg and Runkle come to mind for lawyers) and they're human too, just like the rest of us. They're allowed to get pissed off and lose their temper from time to time. I'm sure if this was on the CCFR FB page, there'd be repercussions, but since it clearly looks like it wasn't, LET IT SLIDE.

Shit... you should see and hear some of the stuff that gets said in online gaming lobbies.

After all, are you going to take someone seriously if they tell you they're going to gouge out your eyeballs and *whisper sweet nothings to* you from the other side of the internet? I sure as hell can't. Say it to my face, and I'll probably take you just as seriously. Talk is cheap.

Strewth
03-25-2017, 05:16 PM
Here's the photochop troll pic, I wouldn't want to be compared to that pasty tax-suckling harridan either, especially if I had to deal with her politely in a professional capacity in any way. Hard to believe it got him that hot under the collar, but isn't private stuff private? Non-issue, IMO.


http://i.imgur.com/HHmn3Ba.jpg

Doug_M
03-25-2017, 06:51 PM
I don't know how it makes Tracey Wilson or Michael Loberg money. Rod runs a school, sure. But once the CCFR was up and running there were elections and Rod was voted in with the members knowing full well what he does for a living and what his views on licensing are. We're lucky to have him. The CCFR as not the NFA nor the CSSA. It's goal is to make the public who are afraid of guns and us unafraid. That paves the way for other orgs to lobby to change laws.

Rory McCanuck
03-25-2017, 06:58 PM
The CCFR as not the NFA nor the CSSA. It's goal is to make the public who are afraid of guns and us unafraid
Telling them that you're going to rip off their heads and shit down their necks is maybe not the best way to win hearts and minds?

RangeBob
03-25-2017, 07:06 PM
We're lucky to have him.

Personable, knowledgeable, eager, people, on this topic, grow on trees.

Doug_M
03-25-2017, 09:20 PM
Telling them that you're going to rip off their heads and shit down their necks is maybe not the best way to win hearts and minds?

The CCFR did no such thing.

CivilAdvantage
03-25-2017, 09:31 PM
This is an opportunity to mention a few things worth considering, not just about Mike. This is the situation from where I see it, take it or leave it.

First, the CCFR and other info people should know. For us to have accomplished all that we have in 18 months, it has been an unimaginable amount of work. My last business project ended about the time the CCFR was just starting up. I work with venture funded startup companies and other business development work, Civil Advantage is not my primary business (Google will tell you that). I personally took 18 months off work to support this effort. I've been teaching the CFSC on the weekends to pay the bills. I'm just starting a new business project now after all this time. Mike's contributions to the CCFR are approaching six figures in services and donations. Tracey, Jamie, Serge, and many others have made building the CCFR an actual focus in their life. All of our "non-work" time is spent trying to out do ourselves every two months so that someday we won't need to be fighting for simple reforms that make sense to the simplest people. Someday hopefully we won't need the CCFR. We did this all because we saw that there was a need for an organization like the CCFR. The reaction from mainstream gun owners, media and government has proven this.

We took this endeavor on willingly. We know what any community of humans is like. There are those who have mental issues, who think it should be done a different way and think; "instead of doing myself, I'll just tell someone else how to do it". And when, as one might predict, those people don't receive the level of recognition they believe they deserve, they feel burning the whole thing down will get them the attention they wanted in the first place. These people are truly the enemy within. They deplete more energy and destroy more effort than any anti-gun group or government. They’ve prevented a lot of work from being done and discouraged a lot of good people from getting involved.

I'm going to be honest. There are a lot of times I think "why the hell am I wasting all this time when I could actually be shooting guns or camping or making money". Life was a lot more fun when I spent my time working and did some firearm review videos from time to time. There are a lot of times I get abused by people so weak, they won't even use their real name much less pick up a shovel and start digging with the rest of us.

Internet culture can be a wild beast. Usually it's me that gets abused and I'm used to it. I took the bait once and it blew up on me, I learned a lot from that experience. Mike got trolled by some anonymous coward. He took the bait, most of us have once or twice. So I'd say cut him some slack as he's done a lot for millions of gunnies he's never met, expecting nothing in return. I might also say that if someone is reacting and needs a little support we should be there to provide it. Even if it's sending a guy a message saying "have a beer bro, it's not worth it"; or at the very least, give this some thought before piling on.

Rod.

Magi
03-25-2017, 09:52 PM
He took the bait, most of us have once or twice. So I'd say cut him some slack as he's done a lot for millions of gunnies he's never met, expecting nothing in return.

Absolutely agree and you have my support. We have forgotten that to err is human!

Deuce-deuce
03-25-2017, 10:32 PM
Here's the photochop troll pic, I wouldn't want to be compared to that pasty tax-suckling harridan either, especially if I had to deal with her politely in a professional capacity in any way. Hard to believe it got him that hot under the collar, but isn't private stuff private? Non-issue, IMO.


http://i.imgur.com/HHmn3Ba.jpg

Well... it is true.

harbl_the_cat
03-25-2017, 10:41 PM
Is it legit?

My first impression was either:
1) hacked account
2) fake picture

It's very easy to manipulate browser text from any website or webapplication (like Facebook, Twitter, etc) and screenshot it to make a fake character assassination.

If it is real, I don't care what the content was, but rather that it was a pretty excessive display of unnecessary emotion. Emotions get you into trouble on the internet - which is why you should do your best to never share them.

Share your thoughts instead and you're far less likely to get in trouble.

Tactical870
03-25-2017, 10:41 PM
Well... it is true.

No it's not. If you're going to make slanderous statements, feel free to back them up.

Deuce-deuce
03-25-2017, 10:49 PM
No it's not. If you're going to make slanderous statements, feel free to back them up.

Rod has said many times that he supports licensing as well as other regulatory measures... he does in fact make money from it.
That's not even close to slander BTW.
Care to refute my statements?

IJ22
03-25-2017, 11:05 PM
Rod has said many times that he supports licensing as well as other regulatory measures... he does in fact make money from it.
That's not even close to slander BTW.
Care to refute my statements?

I haven't read the entire Internet yet, but I've never seen Rod say he supports licensing BECAUSE it makes him money. There's a huge difference between supporting licensing and making money from it, and supporting licensing BECAUSE you make money from it. I'm pretty sure Rod would have no trouble attracting students to his courses even if licensing were abolished.

Deuce-deuce
03-25-2017, 11:15 PM
I haven't read the entire Internet yet, but I've never seen Rod say he supports licensing BECAUSE it makes him money. There's a huge difference between supporting licensing and making money from it, and supporting licensing BECAUSE you make money from it. I'm pretty sure Rod would have no trouble attracting students to his courses even if licensing were abolished.
Mmmmkay... whatever makes you sleep at night.
Whilst his shirts were a little goofy at the beginning, Rod is a good guy in my eyes.
Truthfully though he's been lining his pockets the entire time. If it was truely about gun rights the CCRF would be doing free PAL courses to get more people involved. the guy makes cash doing something he loves.... he also supports the current scheme. It's not rocket surgery to connect the dots.

harbl_the_cat
03-25-2017, 11:22 PM
I support licensing. I just don't think the Federal government should be the one to issue licenses.

Provincial governments cooperating with local law-enforcement, private businesses and non-profit organizations would do a MUCH better job at licensing than the Federal government and the RCMP does.

WSA
03-25-2017, 11:58 PM
I actually don't have a problem with calling some anonymous internet eff-stick an eff-stick.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 07:27 AM
Mmmmkay... whatever makes you sleep at night.
Whilst his shirts were a little goofy at the beginning, Rod is a good guy in my eyes.
Truthfully though he's been lining his pockets the entire time. If it was truely about gun rights the CCRF would be doing free PAL courses to get more people involved. the guy makes cash doing something he loves.... he also supports the current scheme. It's not rocket surgery to connect the dots.

And are you a member to help pay for that? Have you donated time and or money? Talk is cheap.

joe6167
03-26-2017, 07:48 AM
Telling them that you're going to rip off their heads and shit down their necks is maybe not the best way to win hearts and minds?

That strategy worked wonders for Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket (till "Pvt. Pyle" shot him with an M14)... Loberg should have said "unscrew" instead of "rip off"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_JbKzIK4dA

BadRonin
03-26-2017, 07:49 AM
The so called "threats" he was allegedly making were taken out of reference.
What he was referring to, albeit fairly uneloquently, was that he would use the power of his job as a lawyer to ferret out the coward who posted this garbage and to make their life a little more difficult.
He was upset, and rightly so.
we all get there at one point or another in our lives.
particularly if some anonymous keyboard warrior and coward attempts to besmirch your reputation or stomp on an organization that you gave your time, money and life's blood for (for free) to help all firearms owners.
It was just a steam blow off. Loud and raw. But harmless.
And in my opinion he and the others at the CCFR are doing great work for all of us.

And anyone who think he or rod are getting rich or "lining their pockets" from teaching safety course classes is completely deluded. Such a laughable statement.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 09:03 AM
And are you a member to help pay for that? Have you donated time and or money? Talk is cheap.

Indeed I am.... I also volunteer with my local club.

Why is it you guys get so worked up about this?

amolkapoor
03-26-2017, 09:18 AM
Indeed I am.... I also volunteer with my local club.

Why is it you guys get so worked up about this?

I think maybe you don't see that the work they're doing at the CCFR in terms of public awareness of our current system and encouraging a fact-based discussion overshadows the small amount of money made in safety courses. Most people agree with having some sort of training for firearm owners, as they're a little bit more complex than a hammer or a knife.

Would you be more agreeable to have Rod as our public representative if he ran a gun store instead? I'm sure the end result of better firearms laws would mean more business for him still? Or are you of the opinion that we don't have a need for safety courses at all, that anyone can be safe with a handgun or rifle at a shooting range or out in the woods?

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 09:38 AM
I am of the opinion that the old system was fine. One time thing.
Our current system of licensing does nothing to improve safety. There is still just as many dangerous acts at the range. Hunting safety is on the provincial level.
Regardless, we aren't talking about hunting or safety. We're talking about rod and that meme. He does in fact support our current set up. He also makes money from it.

Good lard. I'm glad I didn't say what I think of the woman that isn't Wendy in that meme.

Waterloomike
03-26-2017, 09:52 AM
Yes, yes, he makes money, so what?

He's coming by it honestly by providing life skills training mandated by the government.

Where's the sin in that?

If I could, I would pay him to secure my Rights. Is there someone here that wouldn't?

The weasels we're forced to pay take our Rights. Need I point out the sin in that?

Making money is a good thing, Not an evil thing or a flaw.

Note that I said making money.

Malus
03-26-2017, 10:16 AM
Mmmmkay... whatever makes you sleep at night.
Whilst his shirts were a little goofy at the beginning, Rod is a good guy in my eyes.
Truthfully though he's been lining his pockets the entire time. If it was truely about gun rights the CCRF would be doing free PAL courses to get more people involved. the guy makes cash doing something he loves.... he also supports the current scheme. It's not rocket surgery to connect the dots.


Lining his pockets? Thats borderline slander. Makes it sound like he's pulling a scam when you don't know sh*t. Take a poke at his shirts? Pretty shallow and weak and not the least bit funny. STFU. Expecting people to give you sh*t for free (lessons), sounds like you need someone to hold your hand when you cross the street. Want free, beg to your government, you know, the ones that want to take your guns away. You should spend your time scrutinizing government instead of members of the firearms community? Maybe you should get involved with the CCFR with all your great ideas. Mmmmmkay?

RangeBob
03-26-2017, 10:24 AM
Yes, yes, he makes money, so what?

I assume ...

Rod makes money doing CFSC on the weekends, that's not CCFR stuff.
Michael apparently has given six figures in donations of time -- hard to make money that way.
Doesn't sound to me that CCFR is making money yet, in the profit sense where revenues exceed costs. If they were making a profit, I'd bet a lawyer wouldn't be making donations like that.

"The CCFR is a non-profit, volunteer driven organization. We currently have no paid employees and very few fixed costs. This means that membership funds and donations are used to further our goals "
-- https://firearmrights.ca/en/membership-info/

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 10:29 AM
Lining his pockets? Thats borderline slander. Makes it sound like he's pulling a scam when you don't know sh*t. Take a poke at his shirts? Pretty shallow and weak and not the least bit funny. STFU. Expecting people to give you sh*t for free (lessons), sounds like you need someone to hold your hand when you cross the street. Want free, beg to your government, you know, the ones that want to take your guns away. You should spend your time scrutinizing government instead of members of the firearms community? Maybe you should get involved with the CCFR with all your great ideas. Mmmmmkay?

Wow. You guys sure are spazzy about this.
Saying someone is lining their pockets isn't close to slander nor does it imply that he's pulling a scam.
I do not need anybody to hold my hand. I challenged my PAL years ago... I think it cost me $25 or so.
I've paid for at least five peoples pal courses.
Rod used to wear silly shirts. I'm sorry that offends you... but at least I didn't make fun of the pukka shells.
The bottom line is the Canadian gun lobby needs a lot of work. Unfortunately the followers can't handle the criticism.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 10:31 AM
Yes, yes, he makes money, so what?

He's coming by it honestly by providing life skills training mandated by the government.

Where's the sin in that?

If I could, I would pay him to secure my Rights. Is there someone here that wouldn't?

The weasels we're forced to pay take our Rights. Need I point out the sin in that?

Making money is a good thing, Not an evil thing or a flaw.

Note that I said making money.

I haven't said there is anything wrong with it... simply that the meme has some truth to it. Relax.

IJ22
03-26-2017, 10:52 AM
Six figures is over a million dollars.
[/url]

Not to split hairs but actually $100,000 - $999,999. I make that mistake all the time, the brain sees "six figures" and instantly thinks of six zeroes. I agree with everything else.

WSA
03-26-2017, 10:54 AM
I assume ...

Rod makes money doing CFSC on the weekends, that's not CCFR stuff.
Michael apparently has given six figures in donations of time -- hard to make money that way. Six figures is over a million dollars.
A million dollars divided by $40 per member would be about 25,000 members to break even with just Michael's time. Does anyone think they've got 25,000 members already ?
Doesn't sound to me that CCFR is making money yet, in the profit sense where revenues exceed costs. If they were making a profit, I'd bet a lawyer wouldn't be making donations like that.

"The CCFR is a non-profit, volunteer driven organization. We currently have no paid employees and very few fixed costs. This means that membership funds and donations are used to further our goals "
-- https://firearmrights.ca/en/membership-info/

Six figures starts at 100 000 :)

WSA
03-26-2017, 10:58 AM
Why should anyone care that someone makes money from doing courses? Instructors time isn't free, nor should it be. My first FAC cost me $10 and the cop that did the paperwork was getting paid too.

RangeBob
03-26-2017, 11:05 AM
Not to split hairs but actually $100,000 - $999,999.
Good point.
In this case the phrase from post #26 is "approaching six figures", so it's less than $100,000.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 11:05 AM
Why should anyone care that someone makes money from doing courses? Instructors time isn't free, nor should it be. My first FAC cost me $10 and the cop that did the paperwork was getting paid too.

It's not that anybody cares how he makes money... but when he says he agrees with the portion of the firearms act that makes that money for him it seems like a conflict of interest. Makes people question if their interests are being put first or if it's all about the dollar.

enerflex
03-26-2017, 11:08 AM
Why should anyone care that someone makes money from doing courses? Instructors time isn't free, nor should it be. My first FAC cost me $10 and the cop that did the paperwork was getting paid too.

Why shouldn't be free, a organization can put on Firearms courses and have volunteer instructors do free courses, even one a week with a class of 10, that's 500+ a year based on one area and one instructor.
Problem is that no one is willing to do it for free, they all want money including the orgs

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 11:13 AM
Why shouldn't be free, a organization can put on Firearms courses and have volunteer instructors do free courses, even one a week with a class of 10, that's 500+ a year based on one area and one instructor.
Problem is that no one is willing to do it for free, they all want money including the orgs

This is just it... we need more gun owners. We need to remove the senseless barriers put in place by the authors or the firearms act. More stakeholders equals more power the equation is simple.
Yet all of our gun organizations fail to take action on this... why? Simply because the cash is too good.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 11:18 AM
The party in question charges $220... the cheapest I found was $130. What's the extra $90 get you?

enerflex
03-26-2017, 11:34 AM
In Ontario, the maximum cost an instructor can charge is $150 dollars for a single course per person, and $260 dollars for both together.

That's the maximum, its scary they imparted a maximum fee but not a minimum, it means that people were over charging....

There isn't a minimum they can charge listed so technically it can be free.

I've heard of groups out west taking their firearms courses for free, requests for "donations of $50.00 dollars" but technically free because you don't have to donate.

So if that's the case, where they can do it for free why isn't there something like that in every province, or something set up by an org.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 11:41 AM
Indeed I am.... I also volunteer with my local club.

Why is it you guys get so worked up about this?

I'm not worked up DD, I just don't buy the "lines his pockets" statement you made (and others have implied). And volunteering at your local club is not the same as doing anything at the CCFR to advance the ideas you suggested. In other words when it comes to criticism (of this org) talk is cheap.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 11:44 AM
It's not that anybody cares how he makes money... but when he says he agrees with the portion of the firearms act that makes that money for him it seems like a conflict of interest. Makes people question if their interests are being put first or if it's all about the dollar.

Do you really think there is a conspiracy afoot for the CCFR to secretly be pro C-68 in order for Rod to continue to make money with his side business! Really? And again, he was voted in by the members with no secrets about what he does for a living or his views on licensing.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 11:45 AM
I'm not worked up DD, I just don't buy the "lines his pockets" statement you made (and others have implied). And volunteering at your local club is not the same as doing anything at the CCFR to advance the ideas you suggested. In other words when it comes to criticism (of this org) talk is cheap.

What do you do?
What would you suggest I do?
If I do these things can I go back to posting on the internet?

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 11:47 AM
Do you really think there is a conspiracy afoot for the CCFR to secretly be pro C-68 in order for Rod to continue to make money with his side business! Really? And again, he was voted in by the members with no secrets about what he does for a living or his views on licensing.

I'm aware... I don't think there is a conspiracy. I do think his vision maybe a little clouded by the cash... again, if it's not about the cash why is his pal course $90 more than the cheapest I found?

Waterloomike
03-26-2017, 11:54 AM
I assume ...

Rod makes money doing CFSC on the weekends, that's not CCFR stuff.
Michael apparently has given six figures in donations of time -- hard to make money that way.
Doesn't sound to me that CCFR is making money yet, in the profit sense where revenues exceed costs. If they were making a profit, I'd bet a lawyer wouldn't be making donations like that.

"The CCFR is a non-profit, volunteer driven organization. We currently have no paid employees and very few fixed costs. This means that membership funds and donations are used to further our goals "
-- https://firearmrights.ca/en/membership-info/

Thank you Bob.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 11:55 AM
What do you do?
What would you suggest I do?
If I do these things can I go back to posting on the internet?

What do I do? I didn't suggest the CCFR was doing things wrong so I don't need to do something to change it.

You said "If it was truely about gun rights the CCRF would be doing free PAL courses to get more people involved." I said put your money where your mouth is. In other words if you don't like what the CCFR is doing then get involved with the CCFR to change that. Have you ever talked to anyone on the exec about free PAL courses? Have you talked to anyone on the exec about doing found raising to pay for these free PAL courses? Have you talked to anyone on the exec about volunteering to help run these free PAL courses?

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 11:56 AM
I'm aware... I don't think there is a conspiracy. I do think his vision maybe a little clouded by the cash... again, if it's not about the cash why is his pal course $90 more than the cheapest I found?

Well then I assume you didn't vote for Rod and next AGM you can vote for someone else.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 11:58 AM
What do I do? I didn't suggest the CCFR was doing things wrong so I don't need to do something to change it.

You said "If it was truely about gun rights the CCRF would be doing free PAL courses to get more people involved." I said put your money where your mouth is. In other words if you don't like what the CCFR is doing then get involved with the CCFR to change that. Have you ever talked to anyone on the exec about free PAL courses? Have you talked to anyone on the exec about doing found raising to pay for these free PAL courses? Have you talked to anyone on the exec about volunteering to help run these free PAL courses?


Well then I assume you didn't vote for Rod and next AGM you can vote for someone else.
Typical... you're attacking the poster instead of the issue.
Again, rod makes money from the current legislation. It's pretty darn simple.

Edit. You also failed to answer where that 90 bones is going...

Waterloomike
03-26-2017, 12:05 PM
Why shouldn't be free, a organization can put on Firearms courses and have volunteer instructors do free courses, even one a week with a class of 10, that's 500+ a year based on one area and one instructor.
Problem is that no one is willing to do it for free, they all want money including the orgs

And the problem with paying for it is?

It takes money to run an org., even if the org. runs entirely with volunteers.

There is a new one called Project Mapleseed (https://www.mapleseedrifleman.com/) that you may be interested in.



Liberty, Marksmanship, Heritage.

What is Project Mapleseed?

Project Mapleseed is an apolitical rifle marksmanship training program that focuses on teaching traditional rifle marksmanship from standing, sitting/kneeling, and prone positions in a one day shooting clinic termed a "Mapleseed". We are a non-profit, all volunteer run organization commited to helping Canadians develop fundamental marksmanship skills and in the safe handling of firearms


I think this is one I could be more help with and got in as a founding member.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 12:14 PM
Typical... you're attacking the poster instead of the issue.
Again, rod makes money from the current legislation. It's pretty darn simple.

Edit. You also failed to answer where that 90 bones is going...

Um no. You can't criticize a public figure in the gun community and expect not to get criticized back. I am not attacking you am and being critical of your criticism. There is a big difference. Also I don't care about that $90. If I lived in the lower mainland I'd shop around. Here it is only $50 for the course. Why is the place you found charging more? free market>

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 12:24 PM
Um no. You can't criticize a public figure in the gun community and expect not to get criticized back. I am not attacking you am and being critical of your criticism. There is a big difference. Also I don't care about that $90. If I lived in the lower mainland I'd shop around. Here it is only $50 for the course. Why is the place you found charging more? free market>

Of course... a free market. Jeez how silly of me to think someone "fighting" for gun rights should actually appear to care about the issue.
I'm sorry Doug, it's clear to me now. I should blindly offer support to somebody who is in favour of the current scheme because of free market.
It seems you might have blinders on my friend... it's ok to question.

Strewth
03-26-2017, 12:28 PM
Typical... you're attacking the poster instead of the issue.
Again, rod makes money from the current legislation. It's pretty darn simple.
Okay, is this the issue?
Do you think the orgs should lobby for the abolition of licencing? In your opinion is that the first thing they should fight for? Specifically the CCFR? Should that be the first thing a new org presents to the government and the public at large? Do you think this idea fits inside the scope of the CCFR's mandate, and would this idea have attracted the volunteers that the CCFR has at present?

SIR VEYOR
03-26-2017, 12:32 PM
Typical... you're attacking the poster instead of the issue.
Again, rod makes money from the current legislation. It's pretty darn simple.

Edit. You also failed to answer where that 90 bones is going...

Maybe he only teaches both classes together? You found a single course class as your low point maybe?

Now, I'll admit I raised the question about their presence in the public eye lacking before, but I've never doubted their dislike for the current legislation and their favour for at least better, clearer regulation. That's all in our benefit.

And while his rant seems to have taken on a life of its own, what are the odds this was started by the NFA? Which one is official and which one(s) are rogue doesn't matter that much here.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 12:38 PM
Okay, is this the issue?
Do you think the orgs should lobby for the abolition of licencing? In your opinion is that the first thing they should fight for? Specifically the CCFR? Should that be the first thing a new org presents to the government and the public at large? Do you think this idea fits inside the scope of the CCFR's mandate, and would this idea have attracted the volunteers that the CCFR has at present?
This isn't about what I think. This is about statements made by rod.
But since you asked I'd have no issue returning to the old FAC system.

Maybe he only teaches both classes together? You found a single course class as your low point maybe?

Now, I'll admit I raised the question about their presence in the public eye lacking before, but I've never doubted their dislike for the current legislation and their favour for at least better, clearer regulation. That's all in our benefit.

And while his rant seems to have taken on a life of its own, what are the odds this was started by the NFA? Which one is official and which one(s) are rogue doesn't matter that much here.
No. those were prices for restricted and non.
As for the NFA I don't know about that... seems a little tinfoily to me.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 12:56 PM
Of course... a free market. Jeez how silly of me to think someone "fighting" for gun rights should actually appear to care about the issue.
I'm sorry Doug, it's clear to me now. I should blindly offer support to somebody who is in favour of the current scheme because of free market.
It seems you might have blinders on my friend... it's ok to question.

I never said you should blindly offer support nor was I trying to infer that. Again I was criticizing your criticism of what the CCFR is (or in this case, isn't) doing. And how many times does the CCFR have to explain that it is NOT a gun rights org fighting for gun rights. It is a public relations org trying to normalize public opinion on firearms ownership in Canada. I have no blinders on, you and those who keep mistaking the CCFR for a rights org do. Well, rather than blinders you've got ear plugs in.

Deuce-deuce
03-26-2017, 01:24 PM
I never said you should blindly offer support nor was I trying to infer that. Again I was criticizing your criticism of what the CCFR is (or in this case, isn't) doing. And how many times does the CCFR have to explain that it is NOT a gun rights org fighting for gun rights. It is a public relations org trying to normalize public opinion on firearms ownership in Canada. I have no blinders on, you and those who keep mistaking the CCFR for a rights org do. Well, rather than blinders you've got ear plugs in.
A public relations organization trying to normalize public opinion on firearms ownership you say? Mmmmhmm. So if more Canadians owned guns or at least were licensed to do so that would be a good thing, right? Again, we must remove the barriers for firearms ownership. Unfortunately the removal of these barriers will affect the profiteering of a few.
Thanks for coming out. Good day, sir.

Doug_M
03-26-2017, 01:56 PM
A public relations organization trying to normalize public opinion on firearms ownership you say? Mmmmhmm. So if more Canadians owned guns or at least were licensed to do so that would be a good thing, right? Again, we must remove the barriers for firearms ownership. Unfortunately the removal of these barriers will affect the profiteering of a few.
Thanks for coming out. Good day, sir.

So before we can do public relations with non-gun owners we must first make them gun owners. To do that we must remove licensing. To remove licensing we must get public support for the politics required to do that. So we must do public relations with non-gun owners. But first we must make them gun owners to get more public support. To do that we must remove licensing. To remove licensing we must get public support for the politics required to do that...

You win! :rolleyes:

RangeBob
03-26-2017, 03:08 PM
A public relations organization trying to normalize public opinion on firearms ownership you say? Mmmmhmm. So if more Canadians owned guns or at least were licensed to do so that would be a good thing, right?

That's not their target audience. They're not trying to sway unPALed Canadians into taking up the hobby.
They're trying to educate the 34 million unPALed Canadians about the gun laws, and gun realisms, in Canada today -- since they don't know, and every time something happens they sign petitions asking for gun control.
The CCFR is not trying to make things better. They're trying to keep things from getting worse, and with a Liberal government in power and a Liberal media in power and a Liberal media transitioning from media to government, surely what the CCFR is trying to do is a good thing, on balance.

They don't seem to be on speed dial for CBC Nightly News yet though. A shame that.

sewktbk
03-26-2017, 05:42 PM
So lets see...

One of their board members suggests banning a specific gun on national TV "by mistake"....then another of their board members, who is a lawyer of all professions, busts a fuse an makes actual death threats online (pretty sure one can get disbarred if found guilty of such an offense)...

What else would you expect from the people who tried to rip another gun org appart out of shear power hunger, failed, were called childish by the very judge who heard their case, and then started their own org because they couldn't take over the other one?

Lets just say I'm gonna continue keeping my predictions to myself, and continue to watch them become reality.

amolkapoor
03-26-2017, 07:18 PM
So lets see...

One of their board members suggest banning a specific gun on national TV "by mistake"....then another of their board members, who is a lawyer of all professions, busts a fuse an makes actual death threats online (pretty sure one can get disbarred if found guilty of such an offense)...

What else would you expect from the people who tried to rip another gun org appart out of shear power hunger, failed, were called childish by the very judge who heard their case, and then started their own org because they couldn't take over the other one?

Lets just say I'm gonna continue keeping my predictions to myself, and continue to watch them become reality.

Respectfully, even if all that you have said is true it does not matter to their paying members. They are volunteers focused on educating the general public and media about status quo with regards to normal gun owners and sport shooters. We need a reasonable and approchable face/group to represent us whenever there are questions or allegations from the media, politicians or anti-gun groups and that is something Rod is well suited for.
The very public efforts of the CCFR combined with the quiet approach of the CSSA is our best solution in the current environment.
I understand you might disagree, but we can only work with what we have, the no compromise world does not exist.

sewktbk
03-26-2017, 07:31 PM
Respectfully, even if all that you have said is true it does not matter to their paying members. They are volunteers focused on educating the general public and media about status quo with regards to normal gun owners and sport shooters. We need a reasonable and approchable face/group to represent us whenever there are questions or allegations from the media, politicians or anti-gun groups and that is something Rod is well suited for.
The very public efforts of the CCFR combined with the quiet approach of the CSSA is our best solution in the current environment.
I understand you might disagree, but we can only work with what we have, the no compromise world does not exist.

oh yah. responsible and approachable as in...suggesting to ban certain guns and making death threats online. pardon me for not realizing how responsible and approachable that sounds, i must be the crazy one.

it should DEFINITELY matter to their paying members. ESPECIALLY them, in fact.

lone-wolf
03-26-2017, 07:33 PM
Oh, when ol' mad max gets elected PM, I have a feeling the no compromise attitude will be making a big comeback.

ilikemoose
03-26-2017, 08:57 PM
To me, this seems to be the kind of thing that no one outside a small, heavily invested group of people care about, and they only care about it in the context they can use it to score points in a silly internescine struggle over who gets to be the voice of gun owners in this country.

Doug_M
03-27-2017, 04:55 AM
What else would you expect from the people who tried to rip another gun org appart out of shear power hunger, failed, were called childish by the very judge who heard their case, and then started their own org because they couldn't take over the other one?

The CCFR was not founded by the NFA's "furious five". Different people.

Deuce-deuce
03-27-2017, 07:51 AM
And how many times does the CCFR have to explain that it is NOT a gun rights org fighting for gun rights. It is a public relations org trying to normalize public opinion on firearms ownership in Canada. I have no blinders on, you and those who keep mistaking the CCFR for a rights org do.
Doooooouuuuuuug.... ummmmm. CCFR= Canadian coalition for firearms rights. They sure did pick a funny name for a group that's not a "rights org."
I think maybe you should go sit in the corner for a little bit.

amolkapoor
03-27-2017, 08:48 AM
oh yah. responsible and approachable as in...suggesting to ban certain guns and making death threats online. pardon me for not realizing how responsible and approachable that sounds, i must be the crazy one.

it should DEFINITELY matter to their paying members. ESPECIALLY them, in fact.

I knew you would disagree, but do you have a better solution that works in today's world?

amolkapoor
03-27-2017, 08:50 AM
Oh, when ol' mad max gets elected PM, I have a feeling the no compromise attitude will be making a big comeback.

He does seem like a good man for the job, but majority of our population still lives in urban centres and they just got promised free weed in their backyard.

sewktbk
03-27-2017, 09:13 AM
The CCFR was not founded by the NFA's "furious five". Different people.

Riiiggghhhht. Rod tried to run for NFA president, Tracey threw a fit at the NFA AGM and tried to take over without due process....

I watched it go down. I can assure you, everyone who was in or around the rebel 5 were there to found or support CCFR after their takeover attempt failed.

sewktbk
03-27-2017, 09:14 AM
I knew you would disagree, but do you have a better solution that works in today's world?

A better solution than suggesting to ban guns and make death threats when you're running a gun org?

Yes, I most definitely have a better solution than that. Like not doing it, for starters.

awndray
03-27-2017, 09:39 AM
Is it time to bump that Too Much Infighting thread?

Doug_M
03-27-2017, 10:39 AM
Doooooouuuuuuug.... ummmmm. CCFR= Canadian coalition for firearms rights. They sure did pick a funny name for a group that's not a "rights org."
I think maybe you should go sit in the corner for a little bit.

One who is not familiar with them, one who is not a member could make that argument. You? Nope. You can't pretend this org is something it never said it was. Its mission was/is quite clear. Frankly I don't understand why you are even member if you don't understand that or want them to be something they are not.

awndray
03-27-2017, 10:49 AM
In fairness, even as a member, the name is misleading. Not to mention. Conversations that take place in the closed Facebook group for example, are less about the mission, and more about mindless gun talk and childish banter. To tell tou the truth, that part is disappointing.

Doug_M
03-27-2017, 10:51 AM
Riiiggghhhht. Rod tried to run for NFA president

So running against an incumbent in an election makes one part of the "rebel five"? Riiigggghhht


Tracey threw a fit at the NFA AGM and tried to take over without due process....

I know, I posted the video here on GOC. It was disgraceful. She wasn't part of the five NFA execs that had the attempted "coup" and then later sued unsuccessfully.


I watched it go down. I can assure you, everyone who was in or around the rebel 5 were there to found or support CCFR after their takeover attempt failed.

Well that is just plain wrong. I watched it too, like a hawk. There were some "rebel five" supporters who migrated to the CCFR but none who were founders and most rebel five supporters stuck to the "NFA Reloaded" Facebook page while many who were disgusted with both "halves" of the NFA found their way to the CCFR.

Booletsnotreactwell
03-27-2017, 12:09 PM
This kind of stuff makes me glad I'm part of the CSSA and the CSSA only. Tony is slow and should up his game but at least he hasn't gone full retard.

sewktbk
03-27-2017, 12:52 PM
So running against an incumbent in an election makes one part of the "rebel five"? Riiigggghhht

I said in or around.


I know, I posted the video here on GOC. It was disgraceful. She wasn't part of the five NFA execs that had the attempted "coup" and then later sued unsuccessfully.


Well that is just plain wrong. I watched it too, like a hawk. There were some "rebel five" supporters who migrated to the CCFR but none who were founders and most rebel five supporters stuck to the "NFA Reloaded" Facebook page while many who were disgusted with both "halves" of the NFA found their way to the CCFR.

LOL I could spend this whole post proving you wrong, but I don't really care to. When I say I watched it go down, I don't think you realize how close I was when I did.

But anyway, as I said, I'll continue keeping my predictions to myself, and continue to watch them become reality as time goes by...

WSA
03-27-2017, 03:35 PM
It's not that anybody cares how he makes money... but when he says he agrees with the portion of the firearms act that makes that money for him it seems like a conflict of interest. Makes people question if their interests are being put first or if it's all about the dollar.

I think it's only a true conflict for those that want to make it a conflict. I don't like the required training and licensing but it's not unreasonable for a group that wants to educate the public to take that position. It's not a big deal to me, really.


Why shouldn't be free, a organization can put on Firearms courses and have volunteer instructors do free courses, even one a week with a class of 10, that's 500+ a year based on one area and one instructor.
Problem is that no one is willing to do it for free, they all want money including the orgs

Free? Why do so many people expect stuff for free these days? Expecting others to donate their time and money so they can freeload is pretty lame. If you can't afford the course, go get a job and make some money, because the gun stores aren't giving out guns and ammo for free either.

WSA
03-27-2017, 03:45 PM
I'm aware... I don't think there is a conspiracy. I do think his vision maybe a little clouded by the cash... again, if it's not about the cash why is his pal course $90 more than the cheapest I found?

Maybe because it's done in a classroom rather than someones basement? When C-68 came into law I decided to take the course even though I could have challenged it. I already owned firearms. It was $150 IIRC. That was 20 years ago. $220 doesn't seem so bad in that context. But why not charge what the market will bear or the market dictates? Silvercore charges $225. Doesn't matter if you are getting training on driving, basket weaving or firearms, people pay for courses.

GTW
03-27-2017, 07:30 PM
Maybe because it's done in a classroom rather than someones basement? When C-68 came into law I decided to take the course even though I could have challenged it. I already owned firearms. It was $150 IIRC. That was 20 years ago. $220 doesn't seem so bad in that context. But why not charge what the market will bear or the market dictates? Silvercore charges $225. Doesn't matter if you are getting training on driving, basket weaving or firearms, people pay for courses.

Teach it in the public schools, make it part of the mandatory curriculum. Problem solved. Except for the gangbangers who don't go to school.

(I know, I'm dreamin' like this will ever happen)

And now, back to the infighting!:popcorn:

Waterloomike
03-27-2017, 07:52 PM
If it's $90 and it's full of students, it must not be too much.

He does train the RCMP. Maybe he's better than most.

I really don't get what the big deal is over his price.

Don't want to pay $90, don't go.

This has gone on longer than the original rant by Loberg.