Gun and Gang Violence Summit

Public safety writ large. Wes gets it that we're not going anywhere until we acknowledge public safety as a priority.

Too many posters too busy eating their young to get this very basic message.

Thanks of the link Wolverine.
 
scout_289 said:
Public safety writ large. Wes gets it that we're not going anywhere until we acknowledge public safety as a priority.

Too many posters too busy eating their young to get this very basic message.

Thanks of the link Wolverine.
Click to expand...

Of course public safety is a priority. Thats why I own guns in the first place.

For me number one priority is to get people to stop focusing exclusively on the harm that can be done by a crazy person, and focusing on a balanced approach which at least considers the net benefit firearms offer to society. Any proposed measure should consider its impact on both the harm to be avoided and the potential benefit, and proposals which result in a net decrease to public safety should be abandoned.
 
The only way Gerald Stanley was acquitted was he claimed accidental discharge. If he claimed intent to protect his property he goes to jail ànd loses all firearms privilege guaranteed.
 
Wolverine .303 said:
Check out this link here for an interview with CSAAA president Wes Winkel on CTV News.

CTV Link --> https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1342065&playlistId=1.3832258&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=y9kZB2Z
Click to expand...

That was a good interview, I'm surprised it was not more liberal slanted propaganda. The interviewer was very respectful and Wes was very well spoken.

I'm fully behind gun control if it's the CRIMINAL aspect they seek to control. I will not stand idly by if they're seeking to further restrict us as law abiding gun owners.

How about tightening the laws and penalties of criminals and relaxing the laws for the rest of us. That's good common sense gun control I think. :)
 
This was from about 2 years ago.
Still relevant today. Maybe more so...

tootall said:
A few small changes made.

Hon. Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0A6


Dear Sir,

I am writing to you to clarify a portion of the recent throne speech.
Specifically, what exactly is meant by “off our streets” ?

To that end, the Government will introduce legislation that will provide greater support for survivors of domestic violence and ###ual assault; that will get handguns and assault weapons off our streets; and that will legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana.
http://speech.gc.ca/en/content/making-real-change-happen

I own handguns.
I own semi automatic rifles
(The term Assault Weapons is not a recognized definition. The term Assault Rifle refers specifically to a rifle that is capable of Full Automatic fire.
(New line)Mine are not capable of Full Auto fire, therefore cannot correctly be called Assault Rifles.
http://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle )

All my firearms are locked up and stored safely and legally.

I DO NOT CONSIDER MY FIREARMS TO BE “ON THE STREET”.

My question to you, Sir, is:
(New line)DO YOU CONSIDER MY HANDGUNS AND RIFLES TO BE “ON THE STREET?”

This is a very simple, direct question. I respectfully ask for an equally direct answer.
If I receive an evasive non-answer, I will take that to mean that the phrase “off our streets” actually means “in the gun safe”.
And that will be taken as a prelude to confiscation.

As your party found out with the failed LGR, law-abiding firearms owners are passionate about their sport. If your party is considering restricting or prohibiting any class of firearms, I urge you to reconsider.

On the other hand, if “off our streets” means that you will be addressing REAL crime, then the firearms community will back you completely.

Regarding legalizing marijuana, although I have absolutely no interest in smoking pot, I do believe you are doing the right thing by legalizing it.
I see this issue to be exactly the same as the disastrous Prohibition experiment in the 1920’s.

In fact, it is somewhat ironic that the Liberal party recognizes the complete futility of a marijuana prohibition, yet has recently debated certain firearms prohibitions.
( 2014 Convention, Resolution #151 )

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Copy to:

Mark Warawa , MP Langley BC





Printed and ready to send. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...



tootall said:
I got a reply!
And I am pleasantly surprised to see a straightforward answer, not a steaming pile of bafflegab...

Now we will see if this is truthful, or if the story changes later.

FyeWn9E.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Would like to see if that letter is still relevant in the next round of legislation i.e collaborating with law abiding citizens seem to have taken a hit considering the makeup of the advisory council appointments
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom