Bill S-223

[Kirby64]

Well Kirby64 you are right ! you are also what we needed 30 years ago . At this point we would not have an issue in Canada .
What you have done is admirable , I have done this many times in the past and supported this industry in many ways . all to no avail
We are politically "ineffective" we have supported people in National Organizations who have not succeeded for whatever reasons .
This country is wrongheaded on many fronts and the easiest target is gun owners They Know who they are dealing with !

I'm only 26. I wish I was around 30 years ago to enjoy the rifles you guys had back then!

[Wpghutchy]

My two cents worth. i have never written or spoken to a politician in my life.

Time to start. Sent the first of many to come.

"Senator Johnson

I am writing to you as a Manitoban to respectfully request that you do NOT support Bill S-223 .

As a responsible firearms owner and family man I feel that the proposed bill takes away an even larger portions of my rights as a Canadian.

As a gun owner I am subject to seizure of my firearms without charges relating to firearms. What other law allows entry into ones home and the removal of a persons property without charge?

As I see it this bill is a reclassification of the former bill that was thankfully abolished.


I will actively lobby on behalf of others. I will give my time and my money to ensure my rights are the same as those who do not own firearms.


Respectfully

[VanIsleCam]

The bill will not go anywhere.

[Ramblr]

Maybe... Maybe don't use terms like "sharpen your swords" or "go to war"... Just saying. The bill won't go any further. So many bills are proposed, very very few actually make it even to the prelim phases

[Firearmsking]

Maybe... Maybe don't use terms like "sharpen your swords" or "go to war"... Just saying. The bill won't go any further. So many bills are proposed, very very few actually make it even to the prelim phases

And why not use those terms? Oh I forgot it might hurt a liberals feelings

[sigrunes]

Maybe... Maybe don't use terms like "sharpen your swords" or "go to war"... Just saying. The bill won't go any further. So many bills are proposed, very very few actually make it even to the prelim phases

Even if the bill goes no where we still have to write and fight these things. It will show we as a firearms community have a prescense and they might think twice next time.

[SouthWest Guy]

She's retiring in 6 days, isn't she?

[truffles]

This clueless woman had this to say about the Parliament Hill attack:

On Friday 28 May 2015, Hervieux-Payette sent an email to the Speaker of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Commons, all Senators and all Members of Parliament complaining about the presence of armed police officers at the doors into the Senate.[6] She stated, "In my opinion, it is a serious mistake to arm police officers with these weapons. No matter what, the first victims of an attack will probably be police officers, because people who wish to do harm do not give advance notice. Security that relies on firepower has proven to be ineffective, and millions of Americans have paid the price for this false assumption with their lives." The letter went on to conclude that because the attacker on 22 October was killed by the Sergeant at Arms and not police, the presence of armed police was therefore unnecessary.

[wixx]

Even if the bill goes no where we still have to write and fight these things. It will show we as a firearms community have a prescense and they might think twice next time.

Agreed!! We have to get involved, be heard and get them to understand we oppose these types of senseless bills. Even if it doesn't go anywhere, make yourselves heard!

[ekosuharto]

This clueless woman had this to say about the Parliament Hill attack:

On Friday 28 May 2015, Hervieux-Payette sent an email to the Speaker of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Commons, all Senators and all Members of Parliament complaining about the presence of armed police officers at the doors into the Senate.[6] She stated, "In my opinion, it is a serious mistake to arm police officers with these weapons. No matter what, the first victims of an attack will probably be police officers, because people who wish to do harm do not give advance notice. Security that relies on firepower has proven to be ineffective, and millions of Americans have paid the price for this false assumption with their lives." The letter went on to conclude that because the attacker on 22 October was killed by the Sergeant at Arms and not police, the presence of armed police was therefore unnecessary.

She must be out of her mind when she stated "Security that relies on firepower has proven to be ineffective", if security not use firepower then what they have to use ? Magic ?. Perhaps because she's already 74 years old therefore her memory start failing due alzheimer disease.