So where are we now?

[dark.side.of.the.moon]

Where is the like icon . Haha

Completed the survey. Went for a softer approach in the open comment section:

Criminals should be the focus of any gun-control policies, efforts, and legislation. Unfortunately, the Liberal party has decided to focus on firearm owners who already respect the law and possess/use firearms in a peaceful manner. This is extremely counter-productive and costly, while criminals are left undisturbed. I would expect our government to lead serious projects that aim at reducing criminality, as well as at helping the youth and the poor. I find the C-71 bill to be unfair and ineffective to reduce violence.

[Frankflag]

Done

[celichi]

Completed the survey. Went for a softer approach in the open comment section:


Criminals should be the focus of any gun-control policies, efforts, and legislation. Unfortunately, the Liberal party has decided to focus on firearm owners who already respect the law and possess/use firearms in a peaceful manner. This is extremely counter-productive and costly, while criminals are left undisturbed. I would expect our government to lead serious projects that aim at reducing criminality, as well as at helping the youth and the poor. I find the C-71 bill to be unfair and ineffective to reduce violence.

Slow clap.....well written.....mic drop at the end of that one.

[g-mac]

Survey completed.

[bibatoad]

if jagmeet doesn't like turdo's plan for pharmacare he already stated his party will vote down the throne speech.
in a blurb on global this morning turdo ran off a quick list of 6 or 7 top priorities and gun control was not among them...… probably means nothing but that was this mornings news on global bc anyways.

The New Dogmeet Party is broke, they have to tow the Liberal line, no funds for another election.

[Boombb]

They know Liberals are toxic. There gonna keep a measurable distance

[Longarm9]

Filled out he survey. Left a nice comment about why trying to disarm the most law abiding segment of society is wasteful of time, energy and resources that should be directed against criminal gangs and the underlying causes of gang life, the illegal migrant crisis, abuse of our refugee system, etc. I also stated they should stop disrespecting the west and the energy sector.

[Crisp]

thanks for posting the link.

[extrasauce]

https://action.liberal.ca/priorities...source=liberal

Take this poll and tell the liberal party what you think is important . If they see enough people supporting other policy and not there purposes to gun control it might help given the minority’s situation .

Also please support Canada’s energy sector .

Replied with my two bits:

Please focus on tackling the root cause of firearms related crimes. That is, illegal firearms being brought into Canada, repeat offenders using illegally acquired firearms in the commission of crimes, ensuring known and repeat gang members are never allowed to own or be in the presence of a firearm ever again. Follow this up with long term prison sentences with no chance of ever getting parole or any other form of early release.

The liberals' current game plan of targeting honest hard working Canadians will do absolutely nothing to curb firearms related crimes. People that have a PAL and own restricted class firearms are the MOST law abiding citizens you will EVER come across, period. Punishing them by confiscating their hard earned and legally acquired property is not going to make Canada any safer. But it will take the focus off of the real criminals in this country and allow them to continue to run roughshod over community after community.

[rangebob]

Gun control advocates like to use the expression, “If it saves one life, it’s worth it.” What they fail to recognize is that if the same amount of effort and money utilized in a different manner would save ten lives, then refusing to do so and saving only one is criminal.
-- Senator Don Plett, March 27 2019, http://www.donplett.ca/my-work/artic...ragic-failure/

---

certain gender feminists insist that firearms are a gender issue; that firearms are a vehicle for male violence and aggression. Central to the belief system of radical gender feminism is the maxim that firearms constitute the phallic symbol of male violence, and are symbols of the patriarchal society. In a patriarchal and heterosexist society, the allowance of guns is a sign of misogyny.
...
Needless to say, they view heterosexuality as an oppressive state for women. Gender feminist theory is an example of intellectual fraudulence and is a theory based on phylogeny, tribadism and misandry. This theory currently stalks the social and political life of this country. It is predatory, and seeks to dominate and terrorize. It is a personality disorder in the body politic of this nation.
-- Senator Ann Cools in 1995

"When lawmakers trample centuries-old liberties without offering an overwhelming social good in return . . . then respect for the law dies and the rule of law along with it."

In a 1995 memo, a copy of which I still have in my possession, then Minister Allan Rock states that no long guns will be banned under the provisions set out in Bill C-68. Honourable senators, this could not be further from the truth, and I will illustrate briefly with a recent action and the decision of the registry's program administrator, the RCMP.
In late December, registered owners of a certain small .22 calibre — that is the smallest calibre there is in rifles — received letters from the RCMP-administered Canada Firearms Program demanding the surrender of the firearm without compensation because the RCMP, on their own initiative, decided to reclassify it from a non-restricted to a prohibited firearm. The RCMP's reason was because it resembled the likeness of a military gun, even though the .22 calibre had none of the same operating features.
-- Senator St. Germain, http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Ch...02-28-e.htm#53

The people at the firearms centre can meet with anyone anytime they want; they just organize meetings and they have dozens of them. As a matter of fact, I would describe
them as an active political group. They are more political than we are here.
-- Senator Cools, 2002. http://www.nfa.ca/resource-items/par...ct-27-nov-2002

We are in an era where few people know the historical roots of this particular bill and the issue of firearms. It broke
my heart that the Liberal Party of Canada undertook to oversee the criminalization of firearms ownership and use
because certain individuals wanted to create a culture where guns, in and of themselves, are bad and society should be
rid of them totally. That broke my heart.
Liberalism had at the centre of its existence that firearms use was to be widely among the common people. The Tory
point of view was that firearms should be secluded for the aristocrats only. It was the Liberal view that firearms should
be available to ordinary people for use.
Many Canadians have firearms that have been in their families for generations. The whole notion of the use of
firearms for food and security grew out of the historical fact that every able-bodied young boy of 15 or over was
supposed to learn to use firearms to be called upon to defend the realm and to defend the family. Every wealthier
person was expected to supply firearms and men to fight for the king as required. What has been happening in the last
many years is truly a corruption of our history.
-- Senator Anne Cools, 2002

Social policy based on flawed theory is flawed social policy. Legislation based on flawed social policy is flawed legislation.
-- Senator Anne Cools, November 29, 1995

There was "scarcely a pair of trowsers [sic] made at the present day which was not provided with a pistol pocket in which to conceal firearms"
-- Senator Robert Read from Ontario, 1877, quoted in "Arming and Disarming" page 65.

I’d like to say just a few words about crime in rural Saskatchewan and rural Alberta. I grew up in a small town in Saskatchewan. We had about 150 people. The best man at my wedding 53 years ago — he loves this story. He loves to retell the story of what happened. He came from Hamilton. He was a relative of my wife’s, and he came from Hamilton to be my best man. He was helping at the wedding. I asked him to go to the train station to pick up a couple packages we were expecting. He says, “What time does it open?” I said, “Well, it’s open all the time.” He says, “What do you mean it’s open all the time?” I said, “Yes, it’s open all the time and at night you take a flashlight.” He asked, “Is anybody there?” I said, “No, there’s nobody there. You just go in the room, rustle through the stuff and pick up the package that belongs to me and leave all the rest there.”
Well, he couldn’t believe that, of course; he comes from Hamilton. Nonetheless, that was a long time ago. The point I’m trying to make — and this is a damn serious point — is everybody in our town had a gun. Everybody. You know why they had a gun? Because there were no police for miles around and there were no phones. You couldn’t call the police.
We weren’t killing anybody. There wasn’t robbery in the streets. You could walk into the CN station and pick up a package and nobody cared. You got your own package; you didn’t take anybody else’s. Crime in rural Saskatchewan is on the increase and it isn’t because of guns. Actually, guns are the only protectors that a farmer has.
-- Senator David Tkachuk, Oct 23 2018
https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/...018-10-23-e#71