• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Halifax Tar said:
It never ceases to boggle my mind what people will do. The CCFR made a bonehead move. Who in their right mind that that was the right thing to do ?

One also has to understand that the people like Wendy Cukier have exploited/used the Poytechnique massacre to push their agenda of total firearms ban. She is persona non grata in the firearms community. She has worked to criminalize many many hundreds of thousands Canadians.
Click to expand...
And plus, she has plenty of bucks left to do it. According to the Sunshine list, she made just less than 300K last year.
 
calculus said:
Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:

firearmrights.ca

Statement on Promocode - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

Concerning the discount code controversy: Our promocode was in no way a reference to the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique. It was a two-week-old response to a Twitter account criticizing us for fundraising. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false.
firearmrights.ca firearmrights.ca
Click to expand...
That is the right Jesus most pacifist/conciliatory statement that I have ever seen. Are you sure that is their true statement?
 
Last edited:
calculus said:
Did they though? Here is their statement on the "Poly" promo code:

firearmrights.ca

Statement on Promocode - Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

Concerning the discount code controversy: Our promocode was in no way a reference to the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique. It was a two-week-old response to a Twitter account criticizing us for fundraising. Any suggestion to the contrary is blatantly false.
firearmrights.ca firearmrights.ca
Click to expand...
It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.
 
Furniture said:
It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.
Click to expand...
Or maybe they were trying to provoke an argument. :whistle:
 
Jarnhamar said:
The more you explain yourself and/or apologize on Twitter the more outraged people become and the more blood they demand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Say nothing and move on.

Furniture said:
It was boneheaded, because someone there should have been adult enough to realize getting into a Twitter spat was dumb to begin with, but using the shorthand for PolySeSouvient as a promocode was handing "Poly" a PR win.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Okay guys. They would have been better off not saying anything. A person like me- completely divorced from the entire thing and wanted to know the “real story” doesn’t get it. I am the target audience.

People involved don’t think anything of
It. Outraged people are going to be outraged. But the silent middle who wanted to understand can’t from that comment.

That’s not pandering. That’s communicating. If you want people to understand- you have to Try and communicate. That “statement” doesn’t communicate anything.
 
Weinie said:
Or maybe they were trying to provoke an argument. :whistle:
Click to expand...
It's an argument reason and facts can't win.

If there is a master plan here I can't wait to see it, because right now this is just working against the CCFR and gun owners.
 
I have an Alberta veterans plate on my truck. The truck is not adorned with any "Fuck Anybody" stickers or anything political. It has a CHIMO plate on the front. The plate has three letters and two numbers on it. The two numbers are 88. Care to guess how many rabid weirdos have accosted me for it? I had to google it to figure out wtf they were blabbering about. I laugh mightily every time. Rabid gonna rabid.
 
Last edited:
Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.
 
Kat Stevens said:
Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.
Click to expand...
But it's different this time...
:ROFLMAO:
 
Jarnhamar said:
Hopefully police in Ontario refuse to support Trudeau confiscating long guns. I'd hate for this to be me or one of my family members.

Click to expand...
I will pass on any "wellness" check that results in a mountie stepping on my head (not that it would make me any dumber, I pretty much hit rock bottom awhile ago).

Say there, Das Fuhrer Trudeau, is this your Canada?
 
Kat Stevens said:
Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1920, you required us to have a permit to possess any firearm, regardless of where it was stored.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1932, you required us to provide a reason (only two were permissible) for having a handgun.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1934, you required us to locally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1938, you required us to renew our registration every five years.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1951, you required us to centrally register our handguns.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1969, you designed the classification system so certain firearms could be prohibited on a whim.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1977, you prohibited automatic firearms.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1979, you introduced screening and safety courses.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• By 1994, you required a photo and two references to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate, imposed a mandatory 28 day waiting period, made safety courses mandatory, expanded the background check and screening, reclassified certain firearms, introduced regulations for storage, transportation, and use, and prohibited standard capacity magazines.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1995, you introduced licensing to have and buy firearms, and to buy ammunition.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1996, you required us to get your Authorization to Transport certain firearms, and authorizations to carry certain firearms in very limited conditions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 1997, you regulated shooting clubs, shooting ranges, and gun shows.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2001, licensing became mandatory.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2003, you required all firearms to be registered.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2015, you introduced firearms prohibitions for those convicted of domestic violence.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2019, you passed C-71, which would pave the way for circumventing parliament, and to ignore the experts' analyses (law enforcement, firearms functional experts, community groups, etc.)which you claimed to base policies on, in any further restrictions.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2020, you prohibited some 1500 models of firearms for absolutely no reason than political pandering and cowardice in addressing escalating violent crime.
We complied. There was no discernible reduction in violent crime.
• In 2021, you reduced judicial consequences for those illegally using their illegally acquired and already prohibited firearms.
It didn't affect us, as it didn't apply to us, and violent crime rates continued to climb at an alarming rate.
• In 2022, you banned the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns.
We complied. Violent crime rates continued to climb.
• Also in 2022, you proposed this latest piece of absolutely useless, enormously costly, and completely counter-productive measure of prohibiting even hunting rifles and shotguns, even though the statistical significance of them or their owners being involved in violent crime registered at the extreme right of the decimal place.
And yet violent crime continues to escalate.
So, what compromises or concessions are we willing to make at this point in what has been over a hundred years of faulty logic, intentionally deceptive public messaging, malicious and misdirected prosecution, and bad faith negotiations, while completely ignoring the contributing factors and root causes of those most at risk of violent behavioural trajectories, AND increasing your leniency for those who actually commit horrifically violent crimes?
Absolutely none.
Click to expand...
I think a convening of discussion on your post would be the next step.
 
Kat Stevens said:
Food for Thought…
A history of gun control in Canada.
• In 1913, you required us to have a permit to carry a handgun.
Click to expand...
Try 6 months after Confederation & a decade later to go from Shall Issue to May Issue (de facto) for concealed carry. I'd make it all nice and point-form like yours, but I'm busy for the next few hours.
Sadly, edit limit.

Just six months after Confederation, the renewed threat of Fenian-led invasion from the United States prompts the federal government to pass legislation on 21 December 1867 prohibiting the “. . . unlawful training of persons to the use of arms.”

In April of 1877, Liberal Justice Minister Edward Blake tells Parliament that the “. . . practice of carrying firearms is becoming too common . . . they were carried by two classes who ought not to carry them . . . the rowdy and reckless characters, and boys and young men.” His government responds by introducing legislation recognising the defence of self, family or property as the only legitimate reason for carrying a “pistol” or “air gun” upon the person.

this legislation did not outlaw the carrying of firearms upon the person, which was evidently quite widespread, but merely specified that carrying a “pistol” or “air guns” in a manner that would upset the public could result in a possible jail term unless that person could prove that he or she carried a “pistol” or “air gun” because they had “reasonable cause” to fear an assault to self, family or property.

In 1878, alarmed by violent Orange Day rioting in Montreal that is blamed on Irish-Canadians, the federal government reacts by eliminating an accused person’s right to a trial by jury, and orders the licensing of gun owners in proclaimed districts of Canada.

The federal government’s first serious attempt at region-wide gun control occurs after the 1885 rebellion. Parliament bans aboriginals, metis and “disloyal” white settlers in the Northwest Territories from possessing “improved arms” (firearms with rifled barrels) and cartridge ammunition.

In 1892, provisions were introduced into the new Criminal Code requiring handgun owners to obtain a “certificate of exemption” from a justice of the peace if they wanted to carry a handgun on their person outside their home or place of business

The popular belief that “aliens” were genetically inferior, inherently criminal and predisposed to “radical”; i.e., violent, politics is combined with an exaggerated perception of rising violent crime in Canada’s “foreign settlements.” This anti-immigrant hysteria is used to justify handgun licensing and registration laws passed by Ontario in 1911, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in 1912, and British Columbia in March of 1913

Since the new law is administered by predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon police officers, it is fairly self-evident that ‘permits to carry’ were simply not an option open to resident “aliens.”

Following the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike, the federal government responds to the establishment’s fears of Bolshevik revolution, erroneously attributed to non-British “alien scum,” by prohibiting non-British immigrants from owning firearms and ammunition

Government paranoia over a possible Bolshevik revolution peaks in July 1920. The federal government orders the licensing of gun owners and the registration of rifles.

National handgun registration is born in the context of the social and political upheavals of the Great Depression. It is passed on 3 July 1934, having been rushed through Parliament in only ten days.

Confiscating firearms from ethnic minorities, even those individuals who emigrated from nations that Canada was not at war with, was common during the First and Second World Wars. In WW2, registered firearms were confiscated from Japanese-Canadians early in 1940, long before Canada was at war with Japan.

On 2 August 1940, Montreal Mayor Camillien Houde publicly urges male Quebeckers to refuse registering for mandatory military service. The following day the federal government issues an order-in-council under authority of the Defence of Canada Regulations requiring the registration of all rifles and shotguns.

A registration certificate issued under the 1940 OIC contains the name, address and occupation of the owner; the purpose for which the firearm is owned; a description of the firearm; the racial origin of the owner; and, whether or not the owner is a British subject.

While many resident non-British immigrants present firearms for “registration,” RCMP Annual Reports show that the majority of registration certificates that are issued to “aliens” go only to visiting American businessmen and hunters. It appears that most firearms submitted for registration by non-British immigrants are simply confiscated.
Click to expand...


cssa-cila.org

A Brief History of Gun Control in Canada, 1867 to 1945 - Canadian Shooting Sports Association

Bill C-68's enormous cost overruns continue to generate intense controversy over the rationale and efficacy of Canada's firearm controls. But conflict in Canada over regulating firearms is nothing new. It has occurred many times since Confederation. In the first of two articles, I will provide a...
cssa-cila.org cssa-cila.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
QC Muslim 1st woman charged under 9/11 terror law for shipping wpn parts to LBN
Replies
2
Views
11K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Ex-Dragoon
Wierd But Supposedly True News Stories:
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ex-Dragoon
Ex-Dragoon
Mike Bobbitt
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla (Book review)
Replies
2
Views
13K
Mike Bobbitt
Mike Bobbitt
Back
Top