The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Fishbone Jones]

The FES has earmarked $597.9M over three years for the Compensated Confiscation(TM) scheme. Now if only Canada Post would get back to work already so these guns could actually be shipped somewhere.

You got your wish. CanPost is resuming deliveries starting tomorrow.

I know, sarcasm, right?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I'll play opposition to your devil's advocate. Don't take this personally.

Are you suggesting that 'collector' firearms should be dewatted?

That would be like a collectable car having no running gear.

Kinda defeats the purpose........and value.

Target shooting should be a requirement for hunters. Otherwise it's not necessarily a one shot hunt. You should also confirm your MPI before every hunting trip by target shooting and target shoot throughout the year to remain proficient.

You can't appease a government, no matter how much you bend over, whose plan is to remove every gun you own. They will not abandon their end state, no matter how much you plead, argue, prove them wrong. A simple look at what has happened since trudeau took over is proof.

"We're not after hunting firearms, we promise. Only those black assault style rifles."

Now, go and look at the list at how many hunting and target rifles and shotguns are on the list, that are nothing like scary black guns.

People will either buckle under or we will likely see the biggest incident of public disobedience the country has ever had. The government will be producing hundreds of thousands of criminals overnight, from the most law abiding, CPIC surveilled people in the country as well as adding millions of unregistered, hidden firearms to the country.

The worst part is the deaths that are bound to occur, should they start home collections or unannounced breaches. And they will occur when you start demanding people bend the knee and removing their property.

I am not suggesting anything, these are just some of the arguments of people who want firearms banned.

They don’t care about collector value or the history. They don’t care about hunters or target shooters. They don’t care about you being able to defend yourself.

It started with full autos, ‘no one needs those’. Then it was, ‘we have to license everyone to ensure criminals can’t get them’. Then they kept tightening the restrictions on who can get a licence and how long they last for. Then it was handguns. Now its ‘military style weapons’. Soon to be followed by ‘sniper rifles’ (i.e. any firearm with a scope). Etc.

It’s never ending until everything is banned.

I think that collecting, hunting, target shooting, and self defence are all legitimate reasons to own (and all are written into our firearms laws). People who think you shouldn’t own firearms don’t care.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Took my daughters boyfriend shooting today, I let him try out 3 military rifles designed for long range combat and close in Close Quarter Battles. It's ironic that the majority of my rifles that are banned are ones designed expressly for civilians.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

I am not suggesting anything, these are just some of the arguments of people who want firearms banned.
It started with full autos, ‘no one needs those’. Then it was, ‘we have to license everyone to ensure criminals can’t get them’. Then they kept tightening the restrictions on who can get a licence and how long they last for. Then it was handguns. Now its ‘military style weapons’. Soon to be followed by ‘sniper rifles’ (i.e. any firearm with a scope). Etc.

It’s never ending until everything is banned.

People who think you shouldn’t own firearms don’t care.

The thing to remember is that you're not not debating those people, the Rock's, the Cuckier's, the Poly's, to convince them. It's not going to happen. You're debating to convince audience- the electorate- that you're more right than them. Being the most reasonable voice in the room.

 

[Haggis]

The thing to remember is that you're not not debating those people, the Rock's, the Cuckier's, the Poly's, to convince them. It's not going to happen. You're debating to convince audience- the electorate- that you're more right than them. Being the most reasonable voice in the room.

Go check out Poly and Cukier's social media sites. You will not find reasonableness there. What you will find is well crafted and emotional arguments against lawful firearms ownership in Canada.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Go check out Poly and Cukier's social media sites. You will not find reasonableness there. What you will find is well crafted and emotional arguments against lawful firearms ownership in Canada.

Reasonableness of argument is decided by the audience. Based on undecided audience reaction (we've had an election since 2020 OIC) either they're doing something right, or we're doing something wrong.

 

[Fabius]

Firearms owners are a minority in Canada. There are less than 2.4 million PAL holders.

Most Canadians are not invested in firearms in any way. Firearms legislation and regulation are a minor news item to them that lacks anything truly significant or relevant to their personal situation. In terms of voter issues it’s not on their radar.

Gun control is not and has not been an issue outside of illegal weapons flows for over 20 years for any law enforcement or public safety organization. The only real push for gun control has been of the fundamentalist extremism stance emanating from the Montreal based Poly Souvient and Toronto based Coalition for Gun Control. Neither organization has had any new leaders emerge or join since they were formed in the early to mid 1990s.

For reasons of political expediency it seems that the Liberal Party of Canada sees value in supporting Poly’s and the Coalition’s extremism. However when faced with push back from the public, the LPC, Poly and the Coalition do not give up but seek means that are not subject to oversight, ie the OICs.

There are court cases underway challenging the 2020 OIC, in those it’s interesting to note that neither the government nor the two gun control lobbyists are willing to define what is reasonable nor what constitutes a assault style firearm nor what is a variant, it’s only the firearms owners groups who are. Interestingly as well the courts are generally highly uninformed on firearms, firearms law and are highly inclined to take the government at face value despite being told by the government that they will not grant to the court any information or evidence that was considered by cabinet in making their OIC decisions.

Firearms owners are faced with a public that is largely apathetic; a judiciary that is unwilling to counter executive privilege in support of individual liberty; An LPC that is captured by gun control extremist elements and is incapable of being swayed from their extremism by science, logic and statistics despite being presented with them by any number of sources.

Until the LPC is no longer acting in line with the direction provided by the extremist organizations largely based in Montreal and Toronto, the LPC will continue to actively target and persecute the 2.4 million registered firearms owners for political points with those extremist elements.

It’s actually not about convincing Canadians it’s about breaking the LPC elite free from the two extremist organizations.

 

[OldSolduer]

Firearms owners are a minority in Canada. There are less than 2.4 million PAL holders.

Most Canadians are not invested in firearms in any way. Firearms legislation and regulation are a minor news item to them that lacks anything truly significant or relevant to their personal situation. In terms of voter issues it’s not on their radar.

It’s actually not about convincing Canadians it’s about breaking the LPC elite free from the two extremist organizations.

Maybe brand them as such? The gun lobby needs to counteract these useful fools

 

[Deleted member 175000]

It’s actually not about convincing Canadians it’s about breaking the LPC elite free from the two extremist ororganizations.

The latter is accomplished by making the extremist positions electorally untenable- that is to say, doing the former.

 

[Fabius]

The latter is accomplished by making the extremist positions electorally untenable- that is to say, doing the former.

Option one is to try and convince an ambivalent urban voter that rational gun policy is important enough to swing their vote against extremist gun control. That seems to be very difficult, especially since firearms owners are a minority.

Option 2 is to try and take over the LPC from inside itself and remake it into a party supportive of firearms ownership.

The last bill the LPC introduced had massive pushback initially yet the LPC simply made a small tactical withdrawal then picketed and bypassed via yet another OIC. I don’t think they will actually accept the voters telling them no more, hence every time the LPC; in its current form with ties to the gun control lobby; gets in power, more onerous and restrictive regulations will be the result.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Option one is to try and convince an ambivalent urban voter that rational gun policy is important enough to swing their vote against extremist gun control. That seems to be very difficult, especially since firearms owners are a minority.

Option 2 is to try and take over the LPC from inside itself and remake it into a party supportive of firearms ownership.

Option 3 - convince the ambivalent urban voter that advancing further irrational gun policy is not important enough to swing their vote against better economic policy

 

[Fabius]

Option 3 - convince the ambivalent urban voter that advancing further irrational gun policy is not important enough to swing their vote against better economic policy

At some point the LPC will have the better economic policy ( assuming the blue liberals regain control in their party), if the LPC progressive wing still has ties with the extremist gun control faction then Option 3 would see ambivalent urban voters supporting better economic policies and allowing irrational gun control as it’s not important enough to swing their votes.
I suspect that is exactly why we are where we are today. Urban voters for the last decade thought that the LPC was better for them financially (not to be confused with the Cdn economy) so they voted for them regardless of the LPC gun control stance.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Firearms owners are a minority in Canada. There are less than 2.4 million PAL holders.

Most Canadians are not invested in firearms in any way. Firearms legislation and regulation are a minor news item to them that lacks anything truly significant or relevant to their personal situation. In terms of voter issues it’s not on their radar.

Gun control is not and has not been an issue outside of illegal weapons flows for over 20 years for any law enforcement or public safety organization. The only real push for gun control has been of the fundamentalist extremism stance emanating from the Montreal based Poly Souvient and Toronto based Coalition for Gun Control. Neither organization has had any new leaders emerge or join since they were formed in the early to mid 1990s.

For reasons of political expediency it seems that the Liberal Party of Canada sees value in supporting Poly’s and the Coalition’s extremism. However when faced with push back from the public, the LPC, Poly and the Coalition do not give up but seek means that are not subject to oversight, ie the OICs.

There are court cases underway challenging the 2020 OIC, in those it’s interesting to note that neither the government nor the two gun control lobbyists are willing to define what is reasonable nor what constitutes a assault style firearm nor what is a variant, it’s only the firearms owners groups who are. Interestingly as well the courts are generally highly uninformed on firearms, firearms law and are highly inclined to take the government at face value despite being told by the government that they will not grant to the court any information or evidence that was considered by cabinet in making their OIC decisions.

Firearms owners are faced with a public that is largely apathetic; a judiciary that is unwilling to counter executive privilege in support of individual liberty; An LPC that is captured by gun control extremist elements and is incapable of being swayed from their extremism by science, logic and statistics despite being presented with them by any number of sources.

Until the LPC is no longer acting in line with the direction provided by the extremist organizations largely based in Montreal and Toronto, the LPC will continue to actively target and persecute the 2.4 million registered firearms owners for political points with those extremist elements.

It’s actually not about convincing Canadians it’s about breaking the LPC elite free from the two extremist organizations.

By Stats Canada, LgbtQ types are at 4% and Pal holders are at 5.58%. The Liberals panicked when they saw the two fastest growing demographics in gun ownership are women and immigrants. They knew they had to kill it now or lose the issue with women.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

By Stats Canada, LgbtQ types are at 4% and Pal holders are at 5.58%. The Liberals panicked when they saw the two fastest growing demographics in gun ownership are women and immigrants. They knew they had to kill it now or lose the issue with women.

They haven't won yet. There's 4 more years to grow the sport amongst women and immigrants.

 

[North Star]

Sorry, but any source on the Ruger 10/22 rumour? I know the LPC has really gone on a tear, but confiscating all of them would be a ridiculously huge lift.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, but any source on the Ruger 10/22 rumour? I know the LPC has really gone on a tear, but confiscating all of them would be a ridiculously huge lift.

Why? They've already banned a number of box fed, semi auto .22LR. Why would a few more, out of almost 2000 firearms already on the list, be such a big lift.

If you want a 10/22, I suggest you buy one quick.

 

[Fabius]

Finland, which shares a border with Russia, plans to build 300 new shooting ranges as interest in national defense surge

Finland — NATO's newest member — shares a 830-mile long border with Russia.

www.businessinsider.com

Finland, as a country, plans to expand the number of firearms ranges available to civilians and military to allow more civilians to become proficient in shooting.
Quite a contrast to Canada, one country's leadership views having citizens skilled with weapons as a net positive and seek to support them, the other country's current leadership views legal firearms owners as dangerous because they practice.

I understand the geopolitical nuances at play here but nonetheless its an interesting contrast.

 

[Fabius]

Option 2 is to try and take over the LPC from inside itself and remake it into a party supportive of firearms ownership.

In relation to Option 2 in the above quote, the below concerns about the Liberal Party’s leadership rules in a different thread are relevant.

40,000 supporters could decide the next Liberal leader. As it’s an interesting thought experiment, could the Canadian firearms community mass enough votes to sway the Liberal Party leadership race?

From Paul Wells. More on some Liberals’ worries about what their loosey-goosey leadership rules could mean.

The Second Finance Ministers Club

Notes on a capital city in slightly-amused shock

paulwells.substack.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Liberal Party Memberships are free.

And they tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends.....................

Giddiup.

 

[RangerRay]

If the gun owner’s hijack attempt runs against Team Hamas’ hijack attempt and the pro-life hijack attempt, which hijack attempt prevails?