Cheryl Gallant Petition

Grumpy Wolverine said:
They reacted fast to this and have let it be known they aren't finished. I am hoping that after the next federal election they will then continue onto the revamp of the FA.
Click to expand...

I think that is precisely the point people are worried about. The steps need to be taken now so that if the majority government is lost, citizens aren't left hanging.
 
I'm sorry, but this isn't not a quick reaction to the reclassifications. This is a continuation of the earlier M-439 proposition. M-452 implies that C-68 is acceptable. This goes against what were were told in 2002.

"I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on 13 June 1995. "Bill C-68, if passed into law will not be a good law. It will be a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad a law? It should be repealed..." Bill C-68 (The Firearms Act) has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government. As leader of the official opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party's fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly." - Stephen Harper, January 2002

This is not a repeal and replace proposition. This is a repeat proposition. All it's doing is shifting the administrative onus to an appointed committee. What happens when the Conservatives are no longer in power come the next elections?
 
fenceline said:
How long will they let john be a member? Who would appoint John? Who could kick him out?

John would become another bureaucrat in the system. As easy to appoint as any other, and as easy to remove. New election, liberals or NDP are in and John is out. The new appointment would be liberal stooges and the "conservative" established panel would be no more. Then the liberals could change everything and say they are a separate, independent panel. Plausible deniability for actions taken by the panel. Sound like the current CFO system?

No. Not signing.
Click to expand...

So step one is we keep the CPC in power. A liberal government or NDP does not need a committee as an excuse to go after us, they will do it openly and directly.

Grumpy has a good point about this being a 30 year fight. You win some battles and lose some battles but look to gain ground wherever you can. The idea of "no compromise" and "scrap 68" is a nice war cry but unrealistic. Think gorilla tactics, look for small advantages, build alliances and never let up the pressure. I may not live to see the day but hopefully my son or my grandson will not live in a politically correct nanny state. I'm willing to take the long view.
 
awndray said:
I'm sorry, but this isn't not a quick reaction to the reclassifications. This is a continuation of the earlier M-439 proposition. M-452 implies that C-68 is acceptable. This goes against what were were told in 2002.

"I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on 13 June 1995. "Bill C-68, if passed into law will not be a good law. It will be a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad a law? It should be repealed..." Bill C-68 (The Firearms Act) has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government. As leader of the official opposition, I will use all powers afforded to me as leader and continue our party's fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly." - Stephen Harper, January 2002

This is not a repeal and replace proposition. This is a repeat proposition. All it's doing is shifting the administrative onus to an appointed committee. What happens when the Conservatives are no longer in power come the next elections?
Click to expand...

There is not time between now and the election to replace the FA. Won't happen or at least not the way we would like to see it. Nothing is saying that C-68 is acceptable, but we have to take what we can get when we can get it. Gun laws and instant gratification don't go hand in hand.
 
Marcelm said:
So step one is we keep the CPC in power. A liberal government or NDP does not need a committee as an excuse to go after us, they will do it openly and directly.

Grumpy has a good point about this being a 30 year fight. You win some battles and lose some battles but look to gain ground wherever you can. The idea of "no compromise" and "scrap 68" is a nice war cry but unrealistic. Think gorilla tactics, look for small advantages, build alliances and never let up the pressure. I may not live to see the day but hopefully my son or my grandson will not live in a politically correct nanny state. I'm willing to take the long view.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying 100%. While I agree that C-68 needs to go I don't believe that we will ever see some of the parts of C-68 removed, such as the CA and FA prohibs.
 
Grumpy Wolverine said:
Gun laws and instant gratification don't go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Then how do we explain the recent amnesty? To me, that's an instant gratification tactic. I see M-452 in the same light. The Conservatives gave us a taste of the carrot, but they'll keep dangling it for another term (IF they make it that far), just as they did this last term.

Don't get me wrong, the change of ownership is indeed a good first step, but C-68 is still bad law. Even Harper agreed to that.
 
awndray said:
Then how do we explain the recent amnesty? To me, that's an instant gratification tactic. I see M-452 in the same light. The Conservatives gave us a taste of the carrot, but they'll keep dangling it for another term (IF they make it that far), just as they did this last term.

Don't get me wrong, the change of ownership is indeed a good first step, but C-68 is still bad law. Even Harper agreed to that.
Click to expand...

That isn't an instant gratification tactic, it is a stop the people from panicking and doing something stupid until we can properly act tactic. This is all going to take steps, one at a time. I agree that C-68 isn't a good law, that is why I fought long and hard when it was coming into being, but you don't make that go away over night.
 
It's great that people are questioning the petition however Wolverine posted this so I am guessing that between Grumpy and Mr. Wolverine, they feel that this is a reasonable and positive direction. They seem to be on the inside a little more than most people here so if Grumpy and Mr. Wolverine are willing to go out on a limb and suggest this as a course of action, I'm willing to sign it.
 
How is this committee to be set up?

I see

1) RCMP
2) Ontario Forensics Lab
3) 4 appointed civilian firearms experts

How many RCMP will be on this committee? one, four, ten?? Even if its only one how will the committee work - will it be decided by vote? If there is only one RCMP member will they have more weight than the rest?

What is the forensics lab?

Overall, how would decisions be made.
 
PSYLNZ said:
How is this committee to be set up?

I see

1) RCMP
2) Ontario Forensics Lab
3) 4 appointed civilian firearms experts

How many RCMP will be on this committee? one, four, ten?? Even if its only one how will the committee work - will it be decided by vote? If there is only one RCMP member will they have more weight than the rest?

What is the forensics lab?

Overall, how would decisions be made.
Click to expand...

More like

1-RCMP
2-Ont Forensics Lab
3- 4 appointed civi's from PETA and the Anti gun crowd
 
Jay said:
The ONLY solution to this whole mess is to repeal the Firearms Act and replace it with legislation that respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly! And it MUST be done BEFORE the next election, I will NOT allow this to be the promise in the next election to get my vote! The CPC is either going to fix this NOW or they will lose my support both financially AND at the ballot box! NO COMPROMISE!

Here is the letter I wrote the PM immediately after the amnesty announcement... Voice your opinion folks, it's the ONLY thing that will get their attention to fix this mess!

.....

There can be NO COMPROMISE!
Click to expand...

Exactly this! This feels like they are going to use the firearms community as their ace in the hole to ensure they keep getting voted in. We voted them in the last election with the promise of getting rid of the long gun registry which they did. Now they will take further baby steps to keep getting voted in and use that example as a proof of keeping promises. This is not something to be used a ####ing bardering chip, this is people's lives facing jail time and prosecution not to mention private property being stolen back from law abiding citizens. I'm going to end my rant there before I go full retard, but this is BS. The government was voted in to office and elected to protect the people and their rights, the RCMP was formed to help serve and protect the population - Our law enforcement is now going after law abiding citizens for crimes they have not comitted and our government is dangling a string in front of our face waiting to see how high we will jump for them. The firearms act needs to go, and CPC needs to do so before the next election.
 
I keep hearing this "if they don't do it now I'll pull my vote". My question is then, to who? The liberals? They get in, all guns GONE... The NDP...They get in, all guns GONE The Libertarians, I agree with a lot of what they have to say but right now, wasted vote and either the Liberals or NDP get in....guns GONE.

As I have said before, I too agree the entire Firearms Act needs to be rewritten, but to ask a Government to rewrite such an important and detailed bill as that in a short time period is just ridiculous. I would rather they do it right the first time, or all we will be hearing from people is, geez they jumped the gun and they missed this and this or they didn't listen to us and do this. I want it to be done properly so people are not made instant criminals. I'm also willing to give the government some time to put something in place to curtail things until they can get the FA redone.

I'll take the small forward steps because it is the most positive steps we have had in the last 20 some years. Wars are won in the small engagements, one at a time. The all or nothing, I'm taking my football and going home attitude really isn't realistic and is dangerous, as it could lose any positive ground we have gotten. Read Sun Tzu's Art of War, there is a reason that places like West Point teach from it.

There is an old joke about a young bull and an old bull on a hide side looking down on a pasture full of heifers, and I think the underlying lesson from it kind of applies now.
 
Grumpy Wolverine said:
As I have said before, I too agree the entire Firearms Act needs to be rewritten, but to ask a Government to rewrite such an important and detailed bill as that in a short time period is just ridiculous. I would rather they do it right the first time, or all we will be hearing from people is, geez they jumped the gun and they missed this and this or they didn't listen to us and do this. I want it to be done properly so people are not made instant criminals. I'm also willing to give the government some time to put something in place to curtail things until they can get the FA redone.
Click to expand...
The promise was made in 2002. They had 12 years.

Let's face it. They have us by the short and curlies.
 
awndray said:
The promise was made in 2002. They had 12 years.

Let's face it. They have us by the short and curlies.
Click to expand...

12 years with most of that time as a minority government. The rewrite of the FA wasn't going to happen as a minority government, and as a first time majority, they have to prove themselves to everyone, not just us. They don't have us by anything, because if we want to point blame where blame is due, we are at fault. We let this happen the back in the 90's because we couldn't stop fighting amongst ourselves long enough to unite and stop the liberals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom