PDA

View Full Version : CSSA vs CCFR



Bittereinder
03-30-2017, 09:03 AM
I've searched other threads and didn't find someone discussing this exact question, but the topic seems to come up as a complaint in various discussion.

I see lots of people saying they support both organizations, but doesn't that enable the continued division among gun advocacy in Canada? Casually looking at the websites of the two, the differences are not immediately obvious. It's not like one is clearly for checkered walnut / hunting / skeet / no-one-needs-a-handgun and the other is for polymer / black guns / 3-gun. I suspect many members of either organization are some mixture of the two.

Seriously, and respectfully, why can't the two organizations merge and bring together the relative strengths each may have? Perhaps it's differences in philosophy, how much change to push for and how fast, but so what? There are merits to each philosophy and they can learn from each other. Uniting to form a stronger advocacy position should outweigh concerns about the exact approach.

Dewey Cox
03-30-2017, 09:09 AM
That is my feeling as well, and I'm always surprised how few people agree.

chuckbuster
03-30-2017, 09:17 AM
I have no inside scoop or crystal ball to see what goes on within each organization, but just from having been around humans for a few decades, I can well imagine that egos may sometimes trump commonality of cause.

Rory McCanuck
03-30-2017, 10:34 AM
The theory goes, having separate orgs allows each org to concentrate on one thing and do it well.
Collecting everything into one basket means that one org has to do a little of everything.
That also means that if one personality implodes, the entire firearms advocacy movement isn't as tarnished.
This seems to be becoming more important...

lone-wolf
03-30-2017, 10:44 AM
Everyone points at the USA, and the NRA, as an example of one big org that runs everything and everyone supports, but they too have many organizations with multiple cross supporters. Not everyone thinks the NRA is putting rights first.

Doug_M
03-30-2017, 11:22 AM
Apple vs oranges. It is actually quite simple. CSSA exists to fight for your rights. The CFFR exists to educate the public, who largely know zero about our gun control laws, so that they don't support calls for more gun control or gun control that already exists.

They can't be one org because they are too different. There is no benefit to them being one org. If the CFFR merged into the CSSA would you pay double. If not would they make up the cash shortfall in volume? Doubtful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

sewktbk
03-30-2017, 11:31 AM
The CFFR exists to educate the public

And to say certain guns should be banned. And to have their board members make death threats online.


who largely know zero about our gun control laws, so that they don't support calls for more gun control or gun control that already exists.


Thats funny, considering the CCFR adamantly supports gun control that already exists.

chuckbuster
03-30-2017, 11:35 AM
And to say certain guns should be banned. And to have their board members make death threats online.



In the words of Gary Larson...What the hey...?

sewktbk
03-30-2017, 11:38 AM
In the words of Gary Larson...What the hey...?

CCFR suggested in a CBC video interview about the ruger 10/22 magazine ban that perhaps the RCMP should've banned the pistol version of the 10/22 instead of the mags, since less people owned them. (mind you, they also called 25-round magazines "high capacity"). How's that for educating the public?

The whole minute and a half is worth watching, but skip to 1:07 for the gun ban suggestion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQSF0Y7oAHw

More recently, CCFR co-founder Michael Loberg made death threats online because he got sand in his vagina over a meme. Thats right ; a CCFR lawyer who threatens the life of someone over a picture posted on the internet. That is sure to sway public opinion in our favor, isn't it?

http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?38397-Did-the-a-CCRF-board-member-just-go-off-the-deep-end

Magi
03-30-2017, 11:52 AM
Seriously, and respectfully, why can't the two organizations merge and bring together the relative strengths each may have? Perhaps it's differences in philosophy, how much change to push for and how fast, but so what? There are merits to each philosophy and they can learn from each other. Uniting to form a stronger advocacy position should outweigh concerns about the exact approach.

I don't see multiple organisation specialising in different areas as a problem, what I find very unproductive if not destructive is the fact that they don't cooperate and coordinate their efforts... I wish these organisations would set aside their egos and at least have a yearly meeting to strategize.

RangeBob
03-30-2017, 12:09 PM
I wish these organisations would set aside their egos and at least have a yearly meeting to strategize.

While they (CSSA, NFA, CCFR, OFAH) disagree on a few points,
the principles of those do talk regularly.

When something interesting pops up (Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times), they do get on the phone and strategize. Usually they strategize on day 2 or 4, rather than before they've put out their initial positions on the topic. Unified front and 'what have you heard' and all that. They don't put out One Joint Press Release with all their names on the bottom of it. They put out separate releases with extremely similar content, after chatting with each other.

Dewey Cox
03-30-2017, 12:58 PM
And to say certain guns should be banned. And to have their board members make death threats online.



Thats funny, considering the CCFR adamantly supports gun control that already exists.

They're almost starting to look as bad as the nfa.

Justice
03-30-2017, 12:58 PM
"...why can't the two organizations merge and..." Because the people running 'em don't agree upon who will be boss. Isn't just those two groups either. The NFA has been arguing amongst themselves about who would be running the show since their inception. And Junior's Gang has a long term history of not listening to anybody who doesn't agree with them.
"...CSSA exists to...The CFFR exists to..." Other way round.
"...perhaps the RCMP should've banned..." Issue is that the RCMP is not elected, but are civil servants. As in our employees who shouldn't be allowed to ban anything.

Magi
03-30-2017, 01:04 PM
While they (CSSA, NFA, CCFR, OFAH) disagree on a few points,
the principles of those do talk regularly.

Thanks for the clarification RangeBob, I was not aware they talked behind the scenes but it's encouraging to know that they do.

Bittereinder
03-30-2017, 01:07 PM
Thanks to all for their perspectives. It still looks to me like the two organizations are at least partially competitors. Both offer insurance, for example.

sewktbk
03-30-2017, 01:13 PM
They're almost starting to look as bad as the nfa.

Maybe you should start paying attention at who made the NFA look bad to begin with. Heres a hint ; its no coincidence the shitshow now seems to be completely gone from the NFA and starting to happend within the CCFR.

awndray
03-30-2017, 01:29 PM
And to say certain guns should be banned. And to have their board members make death threats online.

Thats funny, considering the CCFR adamantly supports gun control that already exists.

Would you give it a rest already? We've gone over this.

awndray
03-30-2017, 01:33 PM
Thanks to all for their perspectives. It still looks to me like the two organizations are at least partially competitors. Both offer insurance, for example.

Offering insurance doesn't make them competitive. It simply allows more people to have insurance, were they to decide to join just one. Each organization has its mandate. The more orgs we have doing work for the community, the better.

sewktbk
03-30-2017, 01:43 PM
Would you give it a rest already? We've gone over this.

I don't have to do anything.
Someone asked about the CCFR. I repported things the CCFR has said and done. It may not be convenient for their supporters, but hey, thats not my problem.
If you don't want the CCFR to get bad press, then maybe you should tell them to behave better.

RangeBob
03-30-2017, 01:59 PM
BTW,
at a guess,
I'd say the orgs are more similar to each other in points of view,
than 2 million PALers are,
or 36 million Canadian's are.

I'm basing that on posts on CGN,
and on the many threads like GoC's recent
"What type of gun laws would you like to impose if you become a prime minister?"
http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?38271-What-type-of-gun-laws-would-you-like-to-impose-if-you-become-a-prime-minister

We don't even agree on the penalty for bacon theft.

Bittereinder
03-30-2017, 02:13 PM
BTW,
at a guess,
I'd say the orgs are more similar to each other in points of view,
than 2 million PALers are,
or 36 million Canadian's are.

I'm basing that on posts on CGN,
and on the many threads like GoC's recent
"What type of gun laws would you like to impose if you become a prime minister?"
http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?38271-What-type-of-gun-laws-would-you-like-to-impose-if-you-become-a-prime-minister

We don't even agree on the penalty for bacon theft.

Good point. PAL holders must range from "I might need this to get a job" and full fudd, to high school kids should be allowed to carry Condition 0.

triq
03-30-2017, 02:14 PM
BTW,
at a guess,
I'd say the orgs are more similar to each other in points of view,
than 2 million PALers are,
or 36 million Canadian's are.

I'm basing that on posts on CGN,
and on the many threads like GoC's recent
"What type of gun laws would you like to impose if you become a prime minister?"
http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?38271-What-type-of-gun-laws-would-you-like-to-impose-if-you-become-a-prime-minister

We don't even agree on the penalty for bacon theft.
Who stole my bacon?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Haywire1
03-30-2017, 02:20 PM
Alright. Discussing things is fine. However, just a heads up for all, keep it civil, or there will be an issue.

SIR VEYOR
03-30-2017, 05:39 PM
Apple vs oranges. It is actually quite simple. CSSA exists to fight for your rights. The CFFR exists to educate the public, who largely know zero about our gun control laws, so that they don't support calls for more gun control or gun control that already exists.

They can't be one org because they are too different. There is no benefit to them being one org. If the CFFR merged into the CSSA would you pay double. If not would they make up the cash shortfall in volume? Doubtful.

Did you mean bacon vs prosciutto?

murph83
03-30-2017, 05:55 PM
I think the CCFR started out good, but I am starting to see and read things online that make me glad I did not renew my membership. We need strong orgs, but we also need to start winning some of these battles politically. I think some of the issues that people are frustrated about will start to go away if we could chalk up a few wins. On a personal level...and I speak for me, myself and I. The CCFR is not an org I want speaking on my behalf. In my opinion, they have some terrible policies, and the faces that get in front of the cameras do not help our cause. My opinion, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

Doug_M
03-30-2017, 06:11 PM
Did you mean bacon vs prosciutto?

It's always bacon for the win!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

aerobeast
03-30-2017, 07:52 PM
They should just amalgamate. Strength in numbers.

awndray
03-30-2017, 08:58 PM
No.

TJSpeller
03-31-2017, 08:31 AM
I support the CCFR and the CSSA. They do different jobs, and they both do good work. They are ridiculously under-resourced thanks to the pathetic cheapness of Canadian gun owners.

Gun owners will forever quibble about microissues and optics, but the bottom line is that the CCFR is presenting gun owners (including sports shooters and collectors, and not just hunters) as normal reasonable people, and that's what we need more of, even as the media tries to make us all look like nutjobs.

I am grateful for their work, I think Rod Gitalca is a great salesman for our cause, and I support him and the CCFR 100%

Now, if we want to talk about a bridge-burning, yahoo-led, self-serving organization, we need only bring out that other organization that immolated itself, and the wasted money and effort of gunowners (including myself, unfortunately) who supported it, last year.

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 08:38 AM
I support the CCFR and the CSSA. They do different jobs, and they both do good work. They are ridiculously under-resourced thanks to the pathetic cheapness of Canadian gun owners.

Gun owners will forever quibble about microissues and optics, but the bottom line is that the CCFR is presenting gun owners (including sports shooters and collectors, and not just hunters) as normal reasonable people, and that's what we need more of, even as the media tries to make us all look like nutjobs.

I am grateful for their work, I think Rod Gitalca is a great salesman for our cause, and I support him and the CCFR 100%

Now, if we want to talk about a bridge-burning, yahoo-led, self-serving organization, we need only bring out that other organization that immolated itself, and the wasted money and effort of gunowners (including myself, unfortunately) who supported it, last year.

Of course.
When its other orgs, its called immolation. But when its CCFR suggesting to ban guns and making death threats online, its "microissues" and "under-resourcing".
Double standard much?

No sure how those recent "blunders" make gun owners look normal and reasonnable, but it must be on a planet different than the one I live on.

Petamocto
03-31-2017, 08:39 AM
You are completely right that things would be better if they could merge, but I am not sure they ever will.

Even if they focus on different areas now (lobbying vice public education), obviously those two functions could be provided by the same org.

The CCFR is only a year old, though, so the future will tell if they merge as equals or if one of them gets big enough to absorb the other.

Bittereinder
03-31-2017, 09:08 AM
I don't mean for this to sound snarky, but one way to manage egos that one sees with many associations is to basically form a club where people trade seats among various leadership positions. The risk is that a ruling clique forms that excludes others, but that's what members voting for board members is for.

And some positions don't really need to be traded back and forth. Some are good at lobbying, some at public education. I'm not alone in thinking that both of those jobs, and others, could be advanced more effectively as just one organization whose stated goal is to be our voice.

Doug_M
03-31-2017, 09:15 AM
Of course.
When its other orgs, its called immolation. But when its CCFR suggesting to ban guns and making death threats online, its "microissues" and "under-resourcing".
Double standard much?

No sure how those recent "blunders" make gun owners look normal and reasonnable, but it must be on a planet different than the one I live on.

Tracey's "ban the handgun not the magazines" blunder was just that, a blunder. Not many people are as terribly upset about it as you seem to be. I doubt Tracey will make a mistake like that again.

As for the "death threats online", when that hits the MSM (like the NFA's implosion did) call me. Until then, yeah, microissues.

Doug_M
03-31-2017, 09:24 AM
You are completely right that things would be better if they could merge

How? CSSA membership is $45. CCFR membership is $40. Both orgs need not only the membership dues to function but have to rely on extra donations and raffles as well. And I'm sure both will tell you it isn't enough to do what they want to do. So if they combined would membership be $85? If so what do you think that would do to membership levels? I know some people belong to both but many can't afford that or they space out renewals so to spread the cost.

With each orgs focus being so different, what happens of one wants to go in a direction that is in conflict with the other? Do we wait for an AGM and have the members decide?

With respect to the US people in Canada tend to think they are the one big org down there. Perhaps that is because the MSM focuses on them. But they aren't the only org, not by a long shot. The 2nd Amendment Foundation is another large national organization that does great work. They do what the NRA doesn't do often, and that is going to court. The NRA lobbies and sometimes, but rarely, goes to court. The 2A Foundation doesn't lobby but has multiple court challenges ongoing at any given time.

The bigger any organization gets the more politics is involved in running it. We don't need more politics and in-fighting.

3MTA3
03-31-2017, 09:25 AM
Of course.
When its other orgs, its called immolation.


Immolation comes from the Latin word immolat-, meaning “sprinkled with sacrificial meal.” Immolation always involves a sacrifice or offering of some sort. The word often invokes burning, a common method of sacrifice. You might read about the immolation of a group who set themselves on fire to protest political oppression. You can also use it figuratively to describe anything that’s sacrificed, like the immolation of your Hollywood dreams for the good of the family farm.

Pretty hard to get 3 people to agree on things all of the time, let alone a large and independently minded group of individuals.

Haywire1
03-31-2017, 09:29 AM
With the exception of Flying High the ham loving moderator, who was dropped on his head as a small child, resulting in turrettes like outbursts where he proclaims ham to be superior to bacon, most of the members agree guns are good, bacon is excellent, and trudeau sucks.

Large, diverse groups can agree on a fair bit.

TJSpeller
03-31-2017, 09:40 AM
I am not on the executive or associated with any gun org. In fact, the closest I came was when I was offered a position as an NFA field officer, and attended an NFA organized meeting in Toronto.

I have no horse in this fight except the horse I think has the best chance to ensure a future for gun owners in Canada. That can only come through political effectiveness and public engagement. The organizations I support are the ones that have taken that road.

3MTA3
03-31-2017, 10:02 AM
With the exception of Flying High the ham loving moderator, who was dropped on his head as a small child, resulting in turrettes like outbursts where he proclaims ham to be superior to bacon, most of the members agree guns are good, bacon is excellent, and trudeau sucks.

Large, diverse groups can agree on a fair bit.
All I was getting at was, don't be surprised if you don't find 100% mesh with your ideas in the gun orgs- accept that and act in the best interest of the community.:Beer time:

Likeaboss
03-31-2017, 10:06 AM
I am not on the executive or associated with any gun org. In fact, the closest I came was when I was offered a position as an NFA field officer, and attended an NFA organized meeting in Toronto.

I have no horse in this fight except the horse I think has the best chance to ensure a future for gun owners in Canada. That can only come through political effectiveness and public engagement. The organizations I support are the ones that have taken that road.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it fight.

TJSpeller
03-31-2017, 10:19 AM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it fight.

You can also put blinders on a loyal horse and lead it off a cliff.

Doug_M
03-31-2017, 10:30 AM
most of the members agree guns are good, bacon is excellent, and trudeau sucks.

Large, diverse groups can agree on a fair bit.

No, no, no! Guns are GREAT, bacon is HEAVENLY, and Trudeau sucks HARD. You're org is just too weak on the positions here. No compromise!

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 10:52 AM
Tracey's "ban the handgun not the magazines" blunder was just that, a blunder. Not many people are as terribly upset about it as you seem to be. I doubt Tracey will make a mistake like that again.

As for the "death threats online", when that hits the MSM (like the NFA's implosion did) call me. Until then, yeah, microissues.

Except I thought the idea was to educate the public...and when it comes to that, death threats and the suggestion of gun bans is not exactly what i'd call mere blunders. More like the very damaging exact and complete opposite of what they are supposed to be achieving.

jrcbecher
03-31-2017, 11:01 AM
i belong to both own plastic walnut and handguns lets all get on the same page

awndray
03-31-2017, 12:12 PM
Except I thought the idea was to educate the public...and when it comes to that, death threats and the suggestion of gun bans is not exactly what i'd call mere blunders. More like the very damaging exact and complete opposite of what they are supposed to be achieving.

blunĚder
noun
1. a stupid or careless mistake.

https://larspsyll.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/dead-horse.jpg?w=375&h=300

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 12:23 PM
blunĚder
noun
1. a stupid or careless mistake.

https://larspsyll.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/dead-horse.jpg?w=375&h=300

I wonder how many people who were accused of uttering death threats tried to tell the judge it was just a blunder...

Look, you can call what they did blunders if you want. I happen to think its way more serious than that. when a pro-gun org makes an anti-gun statement or when a lawyer utters threats that could get him disbarred, I don't call it a blunder anymore, I call it at best a pattern of negligence and disregard for their own mission.

SIR VEYOR
03-31-2017, 12:32 PM
Except I thought the idea was to educate the public...and when it comes to that, death threats and the suggestion of gun bans is not exactly what i'd call mere blunders. More like the very damaging exact and complete opposite of what they are supposed to be achieving.

I believe that quote also came out of a longer overall discussion/interview interval that was actually distilled down. Possibly familiarity with the person developed over that interval, or clarifying statements were not used in the clip. I thought I saw it as an isolated incident at that time. This outburst? shall we say, is another isolated event that doesn't seem to correlate or reinforce the earlier one, or the training overlap issue. Judgement in reacting to bait, yes. Underlying causes and themes to date no.

lone-wolf
03-31-2017, 12:35 PM
Friendly reminder.


Alright. Discussing things is fine. However, just a heads up for all, keep it civil, or there will be an issue.

Bittereinder
03-31-2017, 12:46 PM
Please don't give the moderators a reason to shut this down, I'm enjoying the discussion.

Both ham and bacon are awesome, BTW. As are 50 year old lever guns and brand new tactical tupperware.

WSA
03-31-2017, 01:14 PM
I read that thing and while it was an outburst only someone with an agenda would call it a "death threat"

I don't see any reason for the gun organizations to merge. Best for them to focus on their particular strengths, offer people a choice on who they want to support. I support both CCFR and CSSA, and don't worry about a few mistakes either group has made. People are human, they say dumb things sometimes.

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 01:31 PM
I read that thing and while it was an outburst only someone with an agenda would call it a "death threat"


What is your definition of a death threat? Mine is pretty simple, and what was said definitely fits.

Doug_M
03-31-2017, 01:34 PM
Except I thought the idea was to educate the public...and when it comes to that, death threats and the suggestion of gun bans is not exactly what i'd call mere blunders. More like the very damaging exact and complete opposite of what they are supposed to be achieving.

How many CCFR members let alone "the public" even know about these things? Few I'd bet.

Doug_M
03-31-2017, 01:36 PM
Friendly reminder.


What!? There goes the neighbourhood!

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 02:33 PM
How many CCFR members let alone "the public" even know about these things? Few I'd bet.

How many people watch CBC? Thats where the video was posted. How many people have access to the internet? Things on it don't dissappear.
its easy to take bets one can neither lose or win.

TJSpeller
03-31-2017, 03:17 PM
What is your definition of a death threat? Mine is pretty simple, and what was said definitely fits.

What's your agenda in going on about this? It's a microissue unless some people choose to turn it into more. You think our enemies don't read these forums?

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 03:28 PM
What's your agenda in going on about this? It's a microissue unless some people choose to turn it into one. You think our enemies don't read these forums?

Thats actually 100% correct. Its only a micro issue to the people who'd like it to be a micro issue, and its an actual issue to the people who think what was said and done has had and continues to have serious repercussions. That includes me. No one here can accurately measure the impact of those "blunders", but you can rest assured anything that is posted on a major media outlet or social media platform reaches a LOT of people. Thinking otherwise or trying to lessen its importance would be foolish.

And apparently, our enemies don't even need to read these forums, because those things happened outside of here, arguably in places on the net that see exponentially more traffic than GOC.

My agenda is the same as any gun owner who has ever criticized a gun org for what he thought were valid reasons.
The OP asked, I gave my 2 cents. the rest is just some back and forth between people who disagree, where both sides try to prove their point post after post, thats all. Its called a discussion.

Doug_M
03-31-2017, 04:55 PM
How many people watch CBC? Thats where the video was posted.

Not many. CBC TV has very low viewership. CBC's The National ranks well behind CTV and Globals national news program. So far behind in fact that it never registers on the weekly top 30.


How many people have access to the internet? Things on it don't dissappear.
its easy to take bets one can neither lose or win.

Well you're certainly right in that things don't disappear once on the net. But that doesn't necessarily equate to widespread dissemination.

WSA
03-31-2017, 09:06 PM
What is your definition of a death threat? Mine is pretty simple, and what was said definitely fits.

My definition of a death threat includes the ability and actual willingness to do physical harm to someone. To me the outburst lacked the will to carry through on a physical confrontation. You may disagree with me, and that's fine-but my opinion is there was no actual desire to engage in violence.

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 09:25 PM
My definition of a death threat includes the ability and actual willingness to do physical harm to someone. To me the outburst lacked the will to carry through on a physical confrontation. You may disagree with me, and that's fine-but my opinion is there was no actual desire to engage in violence.

The criminal code makes no mention that the person must have both ability and willingness. Rather, it only says the threat needs to be uttered.
The reason being, your opinion of wether or not the person would carry through with the threat is entirely subjective, and has no bearing in law.
Mr Loberg is a lawyer, so i'm sure he's aware of that, and should know and behave better. Legally speaking, he 100% without the shadow of a doubt uttered death threats, which would get him disbarred if charged + found guilty of. And because of a meme, of all things.

So yes, its more serious than what you or others might care to admit. Loberg should now be hoping that whoever made this meme he got mad over will value their anonymity more than the possibility of getting him charged with a criminal code offense.

Pariegh
03-31-2017, 09:45 PM
The criminal code makes no mention that the person must have both ability and willingness. Rather, it only says the threat needs to be uttered.
The reason being, your opinion of wether or not the person would carry through with the threat is entirely subjective, and has no bearing in law.
Mr Loberg is a lawyer, so i'm sure he's aware of that, and should know and behave better. Legally speaking, he 100% without the shadow of a doubt uttered death threats. And because of a meme, of all things.

Why do you feel the need to keep pressing the issue? Judging by your last dozen or so posts it seems you have an agenda against the CCFR? Why can't you just admit he's human, he lost his cool and made a mistake, and we can all move on with our lives and appreciate what the CCFR has done and is working to accomplish without focusing on the bad and deliberately trying to bring them down. Focusing on the past won't help us get anywhere in the future, and we need org's like the CCFR and CSSA working for the benefit of gun owners, even if we personally disagree with their take on some of the finer details and stances on certain issues.

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 10:01 PM
Why do you feel the need to keep pressing the issue? Judging by your last dozen or so posts it seems you have an agenda against the CCFR?

I don't. please see post #55.


Why can't you just admit he's human, he lost his cool and made a mistake, and we can all move on with our lives and appreciate what the CCFR has done and is working to accomplish without focusing on the bad and deliberately trying to bring them down. Focusing on the past won't help us get anywhere in the future, and we need org's like the CCFR and CSSA working for the benefit of gun owners, even if we personally disagree with their take on some of the finer details and stances on certain issues.

As both a lawyer and a founder of a gun org, he should know better than to make such mistakes. Yes we are all human, but some of us choose specific paths in life that require a code of conduct to be observed, and not doing so can consequently be deemed more serious and damaging than if it was just mr nobody doing it. I happen to think that people who choose to become ambassadors and defend specific causes in public (and who happen to be lawyers, to top it off) consequently choose to be held to a higher standard, precisely because they decide to speak on the behalf of others. Even more so when the stated mission is public relations.

The real way to stop focusing on the past and move forward is to recognize the seriousness of something and take action so that it doesn't happen again. The question you should ask yourself is, would it be OK for this to happen a second time? a third time? if the answer is no, then it means its not a microissue. The OP stated Loberg should be turfed....while I don't know what the proper remedy is, I can assure you brushing it off as if it was nothing isn't it. A good start would be acknowledgement from the CCFR/Loberg that this was unacceptable behaviour.

Stop lying to yourselves guys. If it was Wendy or a liberal politician who had made such statements on social media, you'd all be calling for an apology, a lawsuit and his/her resignation. So yeah. Philosophical consistence.

Maybe what we need to do as gun owners is hold ourselves and representatives to the same standard as our enemies.

Bittereinder
03-31-2017, 10:21 PM
Um, just to clarify, I think you mean the OP of another thread. Or maybe you mean original poster of the Loborg aspect of this thread (which is not me).

As the OP of this thread, I just say "I am the destroyer of worlds, I have become death."

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 10:22 PM
Um, just to clarify, I think you mean the OP of another thread.

As the OP of this thread, I just say "I am the destroyer of worlds, I have become death."

LOL yes you are right, my bad. I did mean the OP of the other thread. I apologize. ;)

Pariegh
03-31-2017, 10:22 PM
I don't. please see post #55.

As both a lawyer and a founder of a gun org, he should know better than to make such mistakes. Yes we are all human, but some of us choose specific paths in life that require a code of conduct to be observed, and not doing so can consequently be deemed more serious and damaging than if it was just mr nobody doing it. I happen to think that people who choose to become ambassadors and defend specific causes in public (and who happen to be lawyers, to top it off) consequently choose to be held to a higher standard, precisely because they decide to speak on the behalf of others. Even more so when the stated mission is public relations.

Why do you feel the need to keep pressing the issue? Judging by your last dozen or so posts it seems you have an agenda against the CCFR? Why can't you just admit he's human, he lost his cool and made a mistake, and we can all move on with our lives and appreciate what the CCFR has done and is working to accomplish without focusing on the bad and deliberately trying to bring them down. Focusing on the past won't help us get anywhere in the future, and we need org's like the CCFR and CSSA working for the benefit of gun owners, even if we personally disagree with their take on some of the finer details and stances on certain issues.

I figure if you can just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over, then why can't I? ;D

The obvious humanity working their butts off for something they believe in behind the scenes is what makes the CCFR approachable and appealing to gun owners and non-owners alike. One of their people stepped out of character and said what many of us gun owning minions want to or regularly say to the trolls anyway. So ... what... If you have no personal agenda against the CCFR then why does it matter so much to you that you are doing your best to slander an organization that is providing a fresh perspective on gun ownership simply because one of the humans in the organization isn't meeting your standards? How do you want the matter resolved? Public rejection by the org? That would be wrong and a very modern entitled liberal (small 'L') way of doing things. If you don't like their people, don't like their platform, or whatever the reason, just don't support them. Repeating the same biased slander over and over, regardless of if their is truth to it or not, is not pleasant discussion, nor is it contributing in any positive way.

Bittereinder
03-31-2017, 10:23 PM
LOL yes you are right, my bad. I did mean the OP of the other thread. I apologize. ;)

Understood, thanks.

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 10:25 PM
Why do you feel the need to keep pressing the issue? Judging by your last dozen or so posts it seems you have an agenda against the CCFR? Why can't you just admit he's human, he lost his cool and made a mistake, and we can all move on with our lives and appreciate what the CCFR has done and is working to accomplish without focusing on the bad and deliberately trying to bring them down. Focusing on the past won't help us get anywhere in the future, and we need org's like the CCFR and CSSA working for the benefit of gun owners, even if we personally disagree with their take on some of the finer details and stances on certain issues.

I figure if you can just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over, then why can't I? ;D

The obvious humanity working their butts off for something they believe in behind the scenes is what makes the CCFR approachable and appealing to gun owners and non-owners alike. One of their people stepped out of character and said what many of us gun owning minions want to or regularly say to the trolls anyway. So ... what... If you have no personal agenda against the CCFR then why does it matter so much to you that you are doing your best to slander an organization that is providing a fresh perspective on gun ownership simply because one of the humans in the organization isn't meeting your standards? How do you want the matter resolved? Public rejection by the org? That would be wrong and a very modern entitled liberal (small 'L') way of doing things. If you don't like their people, don't like their platform, or whatever the reason, just don't support them. Repeating the same biased slander over and over, regardless of if their is truth to it or not, is not pleasant discussion, nor is it contributing in any positive way.

You asked, I answered. I don't repeat things if people don't keep asking me about them.

And it isn't biased slander. Slander has to be false and malicious. I merely stated facts about what was said and done.

WSA
03-31-2017, 10:27 PM
if someone has an axe to grind, they will of course try to emphasize this event. Much ado about nothing, really. IMHO



Here's a good read on threats.

https://defencelaw.com/uttering-threats/

sewktbk
03-31-2017, 10:32 PM
if someone has an axe to grind, they will of course try to emphasize this event. Much ado about nothing, really. IMHO

Here's a good read on threats.

https://defencelaw.com/uttering-threats/

Have you read the link you posted? Because I think you disagree with me, and this link actually strengthens my stance, which seems odd if you're trying to prove me wrong.


To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously or to intimidate.

It is not necessary for the Crown to prove that the person uttering the threat did so with the intent that it be conveyed to its intended recipient. Nor is it necessary to prove that the person making the threat intended to carry it out or was capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.

WSA
03-31-2017, 11:25 PM
Also says this


No offence is committed, however, if a threat is innocently made. The offence is not meant to criminalize idle threats or words blurted out only in anger, desperation, bitterness or frustration. Words said in jest or in a manner that they could not be taken seriously do not constitute a threat.


“Leave my family alone. If you don’t leave them alone, I’ll kill you.” Former Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman reportedly uttered these words to a television reporter during a city council meeting in May 1999. It was said Lastman was angry with the reporter over a story published in a satirical magazine that alluded to the mayor’s wife. Did the ex-mayor commit a crime? The answer depends primarily on whether his words were no more than an angry outburst or whether he meant them to be taken seriously. Lastman was never charged.

And I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Your mind is made up. You don't want to let this go, you want to make it into as big an issue as you can. Others may be interested though.

Pariegh
03-31-2017, 11:31 PM
You asked, I answered. I don't repeat things if people don't keep asking me about them.

And it isn't biased slander. Slander has to be false and malicious. I merely stated facts about what was said and done.

Refer to post #7 and tell me that doesn't sound like malicious part truths from data picked to shed the most negative light possible on the CCFR stemming from a preformulated opinion. It is also where you made a somewhat successful deliberate attempt to derail the thread in order to spark controversy, and certainly not discussion.

I had a long response typed out.

But honestly, you are entitled to your opinion. But just because you don't like the CCFR for whatever reason doesn't make it right to throw dirt on them at every possible occasion. Nobody will agree with everything anybody does, but it's a good bunch of people running that show and they are doing great things for the firearms community. Even if they do occasionally say stupid stuff on the internet.

If you want to be a useful part of a community, maybe think of ways to contribute positively, instead of trolling "CCFR=bad" on barely related threads, as has been the case in the last bunch of posts.

Have a good night sir.

Doug_M
04-01-2017, 05:25 AM
Stop lying to yourselves guys. If it was Wendy or a liberal politician who had made such statements on social media, you'd all be calling for an apology, a lawsuit and his/her resignation. So yeah. Philosophical consistence.

The only one lying to themselves is you. Wendy and Liberal politicians no doubt have said such things. But we don't know about it because just like Loberg's outburst, it wasn't widely known. I bet only a few hundred (at most) people, all CCFR/GOC/CGN members, saw that.

Mountain out of a molehill. When this is on CBC I'll publicly eat my words. Until then...

sewktbk
04-01-2017, 07:32 AM
The only one lying to themselves is you. Wendy and Liberal politicians no doubt have said such things. But we don't know about it because just like Loberg's outburst, it wasn't widely known. I bet only a few hundred (at most) people, all CCFR/GOC/CGN members, saw that.

Mountain out of a molehill. When this is on CBC I'll publicly eat my words. Until then...

Ah, so its only serious for you if X number of people become aware, and you arent concerned with the actual behaviour itself and the destructive potential it has? Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I'm glad both our positions are clear.

And you are definitely llying to yourself if you think a politician ever made such statements on social media without it making the news.

Zedbra
04-01-2017, 10:45 AM
Wow. Reigning it back from the obsessed dribble - I support both orgs, though I like the open communication and practical approach of the CCFR better; hence I have become involved with them more so. In all the years I have tried to contact or communicate with the CSSA, I have never received a return email or been contacted in any matter - other than the boiler plate emails everyone gets and dues renewal emails.

labradort
04-01-2017, 03:46 PM
Join both and then figure out if you don't want to renew one. You'll learn more what they are about as a member.

I emailed CSSA before I joined and asked for their policies. Got a reply from Tony himself. I wish I could find the PDF he sent me somewhere online. Long list of accomplishments for the CSSA. At times they have been the only org invited to speak to Government (before Liberals took over). I like Rod's educational videos (CCFR) - he is highly relatable for the public, but I don't think all the field officers are suitable on that aspect.

Doug_M
04-01-2017, 07:49 PM
Ah, so its only serious for you if X number of people become aware, and you arent concerned with the actual behaviour itself and the destructive potential it has?

No I'm not, because I'm not obsessive about a nothing event like you seem to be. "Actual behaviour...destructive potential". What are you, an armchair psychologist? Wow, time to move on. The other 30 people who saw it have too.

sewktbk
04-01-2017, 08:18 PM
No I'm not, because I'm not obsessive about a nothing event like you seem to be. "Actual behaviour...destructive potential". What are you, an armchair psychologist? Wow, time to move on. The other 30 people who saw it have too.

Making up numbers huh. I see. That in itself says a lot.

Petamocto
04-01-2017, 08:47 PM
Making up numbers huh. I see. That in itself says a lot.

So does 5000+ posts vs 240.

RangeBob
04-01-2017, 09:32 PM
Tracey's "ban the handgun not the magazines" blunder was just that, a blunder. Not many people are as terribly upset about it as you seem to be. I doubt Tracey will make a mistake like that again.

As for the "death threats online", when that hits the MSM (like the NFA's implosion did) call me. Until then, yeah, microissues.

My take on the CCFR's Tracey Wilson 'ban the Ruger Charger' comment is:
I'm not sure, but I think it was during an interview, rather than a printed article authored by her. So it was an off-the-cuff comment.
Around the same time a half dozen CGNers made the same suggestion, that the Charger should be banned so we could keep the more popular magazine -- and they were roundly dissolved of that notion by a hundred CGNers.
Around the same time a couple of GOCers made the same suggestion, that the Charger should be banned so we could keep the more popular magazine -- and they were roundly dissolved of that notion by more than couple of GOCers. Foxer's posts were, both long and scathing.
The day after Tracey made the comment, the CCFR said it was the official position of the CCFR that Tracey was wrong on this point, and that Tracey had agreed to the error of her suggestion.
So, to me, it was a mistake that others had made, was made off-the-cuff rather than with thought as to the implications, so it was just a mistake by an employee and was never the position of the CCFR.
It happens. They retracted and repaired as best they could. Then they moved on.

With regards to the lawyer's statement. I've heard tell that many lawyers are extremely competitive and make statements like that frequently.
What was unusual in this case was that he said it in public, that is, on the internet. That makes it at least a little more serious than two 7-year-old boys in the back of a car saying "I'm going to kill you".
Nonetheless it's clear he was talking about using the court as his weapon, rather than sticks/stones/guns/knives/fists. If a police officer says to a suspect "Tell me about your employer or I'm going to mess up your life!" does that mean that the officer is guilty of uttering threats in the Criminal Code sense, or that the organization to which he's a member -- the police force -- is because of that somehow impugned? No.
Also, there's no opportunity -- Mike doesn't know who the target is. If it turns out to be some 90-year-old nun who looks after widows and orphans, I'm sure even his court idea would be dismissed by him instantly. Means Motive Opportunity. Ability Opportunity Jeopardy. Ability Intent Means.
And there's "time heals all wounds", and the advice and support of his peers, and reading our less than impressed reviews, and other calls on his time.
If police judge Mike's internet a real threat in the Criminal Code sense, even to stop by and give him a talking to, then I'd take it more seriously. If his PAL gets revoked, then I'd take it more seriously. But I really doubt either of those things is going to happen, therefore the professionals responsible for this sort of thing are not concerned and so I'm not worried about it impugning the CCFR.

Rod Giltaca has earned the CCFR a lot of credit, far more than these two incidents used up. I concur with Rod's assessment, which if I can rephrase as I remember it boiled down to: yeah it wasn't a good thing, it was a mistake, but it was a human reaction that was provoked, and Rod is offering both guidance to Mike as well as support. A little forgiveness is warranted in this case, not 'piling on'.
http://www.gunownersofcanada.ca/showthread.php?38397-Did-the-a-CCRF-board-member-just-go-off-the-deep-end&p=469596&viewfull=1#post469596

Of course that doesn't mean Rod will forget Tracey's and Mike's. Probation if you will.
Everyone falls. Eventually they learn to walk.

I'm reminded of a business story I heard years ago, in which an employee made a mistake that cost the company a million dollars. The next day he handed a letter of resignation to the owner of the company. The owner promptly rejected the resignation, saying "Are you crazy? I just bought you a million dollar education. I'm not going to throw away that kind of money, and hire some new guy who will not ever learn it the way you have it burned into the core of your being now. You're never going to make that mistake again are you?"

sewktbk
04-01-2017, 09:35 PM
So does 5000+ posts vs 240.

:FP2

Pathetic level : expert.
I guess you really get to know who you're debating when they attack you on your number of GOC posts and try to belittle you for it...:rolleyes:

Yogi05
04-01-2017, 10:36 PM
Wasn't Tracey's comment during an interview, and referring the number of mags out there vs. the number of charger pistols something to the effect that (mags vs. pistols) "it would be easier to ban the pistols"[sic] ?? meaning there are many less chargers than 10/22 mags.

Bittereinder
04-01-2017, 10:46 PM
Wasn't Tracey's comment during an interview, and referring the number of mags out there vs. the number of charger pistols something to the effect that (mags vs. pistols) "it would be easier to ban the pistols"[sic] ?? meaning there are many less chargers than 10/22 mags.

I think I read somewhere that there are fewer than 500 charger pistols in Canada. In an off the cuff statement I can sort of see how someone might say what she said, but obviously unfair for the charger pistol owners. Much better to remove mag limits for rimfire pistols as well, if one is just stating wish list items.

RangeBob
04-01-2017, 11:08 PM
Wasn't Tracey's comment during an interview, and referring the number of mags out there vs. the number of charger pistols something to the effect that (mags vs. pistols) "it would be easier to ban the pistols"[sic] ?? meaning there are many less chargers than 10/22 mags.

I think so too.
Tracey's was wrong thinking though.



I think I read somewhere that there are fewer than 500 charger pistols in Canada.

1.25 million, over 10 round, Ruger 10/22 rifle magazines, sold in Canada in the past 30 years, according to the distributor (Tony Bernardo on Brian Lilley).

200,000 Ruger 10/22 rifles. (gank.ca up to 2012 was 125,000. Add the 17,000 per year after that based on the 2011 LGR recorded purchases).

486 Ruger Chargers in Canada ( http://gank.ca/lgr/ )






1964: Ruger introduces 10/22 and begins production with 10-round rotary box magazines designed and manufactured for it (By 2016 approximately 200,000 of them are in Canada)

early '70s - larger magazines, including drums, start to appear on the market, designed and manufactured for you guessed it

1977: Butler Creek designs the 25/22 magazine, which will prove to be the most popular of these mags

1978: Butler Creek patents 25 round magazine for 10/22 (By 2016 approximately a million of these in Canada according to the distributor, worth over $30 million)

2006: Harper government elected

2007: Ruger introduces Charger pistol

2008: first Charger pistol purchased in Canada (By 2012 approximately 486 of them are in Canada)

2012: Ruger copies BC with their BX-25 but foolishly labels it as both a rifle and a pistol magazine

2013: CFP Bulletin 72, 2013-09-05

2014: A new version of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course is published, which again states, twice, that there is no round limit on rimfire magazines.

2014: Daniel Guay informs Profit River (CGN Contributing Dealer) that 25-shot and 110-shot 10/22 magazines are prohibited. (here)

2015: IRUNGUNS sent that 2014 memo to the Minister of Public Safety. (here)

2015: Liberals release policy promising to "put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police."

2015: Trudeau government elected

2016: RCMP declares 25 round aftermarket magazines that fit the 10/22 and Charger are prohibited devices.






With the imperious stroke of a pen, the RCMP has turned into criminals thousands of law abiding gun owners who were doing their best to obey the law. They now are afoul of a police-imposed prohibition on a common accessory for the most popular of .22 rifles. Now deemed illegal are magazines holding more than 10 rounds for the venerable Ruger 10/22.
It so happens I have one of these rifles. My wife gave it to me for my birthday 37 years ago. I remember because it was the first year of our marriage. The Ruger clinched it. A dandy little rifle for gophers, crows and, especially, tin cans, it is enormous fun to shoot. It also is ubiquitous. Not too many firearms enthusiasts don’t have a Ruger 10/22. I would be surprised if any of Canada’s Olympic shooters, for instance, have not had one in their gun safe. Among farmers, ranchers and hunters, it is almost standard equipment.
The 10/22 comes with a 10-round magazine. A lot of owners, maybe most of them, buy extra magazines of various sizes up to 50 rounds. While one person shoots, another can be loading the extra magazine. If you don’t think it’s fun to send a tin can flying with 50 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger, you haven’t tried it.
-- hxxp://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/rcmp-making-criminals-of-responsible-gun-owners[/QUOTE]

GTW
04-01-2017, 11:35 PM
I belong to both CSSA & CCFR. I used to belong to the NFA until it imploded.

IMO, it's a good thing to have multiple organizations work for us. Theres a lot of good work being done by both orgs.

Do I think Tracy screwed up in one of her first interviews? Yup, but having had the opportunity to be placed before a camera/microphone shoved in your face I understand how a seemingly innocuous answer (ill thought out as it was in hindsight) to a question can be damaging. That mistake was acknowledged and we all learned from the incident. As to the tweet or facebook comment or whatever the f%&$ message media posted by Mike, I stated I am disappointed in his action, but I hope he/they can learn/rebound from this as well.

I think this topic has been beaten to death and clearly demonstrates how divided we as gun owners are, more's the pity.

I have found money talks and bulls&% walks, so I'm going to leave this thread with one question:
Sewktbk, you've been quite vociferous in your position and critique of the CCFR, may I ask what organization you've put your money and support behind?

Malus
04-02-2017, 09:59 AM
I think this topic has been beaten to death and clearly demonstrates how divided we as gun owners are, more's the pity.


Perusing this thread, it seems that "most" are willing to forgive and go forward and a small select few are purposely trolling. I don't think gun owners are as divided as everyone thinks. Its divide and conquer tactics promoted by a few with an agenda to discredit a new gun organization. The CCFR must be doing something right if they are starting to attract the attention of disruptive trolls....

labradort
04-02-2017, 10:17 AM
So they banned the Charger as a result of Tracy's comment? You guys are way too sensitive. She said it would be easier to remove the pistol than all of the magazines. That is actually a fact if you wanted to look at it as numbers. Big deal. It was a point made to demonstrate the lack of thought behind the 10/22 magazine capacity restriction.

The mistake was not in messaging to government, but in taking care of the feelings of some of the membership. It is clearly the biggest faux pas a person can ever make, to remind gun org members of the possibility of compromising and making trade offs with government. We are clearly far better off not negotiating and staying the course with complaining. Right? Or not? But really, even in inaction, the large capacity magazine owners are thrown under the bus to save the Charger owners their pistols. There is no winning without changing the government policy.