A Message from Matt Hipwell

[Steve_B]

That's just saying "it will" though. So can we articulate the actual harm that symbolism will cause, besides just saying it does?

How will things now go differently than they would have?

First we'd have to know how things would've gone otherwise and how to best quantify the shift in public perception. Not having the measurement of a consequence does not prove there is no consequence.

[Mosin_redstar]

What's the practical difference between this and if there had been no deal/contract though?

I mean I get the symbolic win for the govt but whats the real world impact vs if this hadn't happened?

By saying "yes I posses x amount of assault style weapons and want money from taxpayers for compensation" What do you think this does for our credibility after we have been arguieing this whole ban is BS? We have been fighting this for so long and to decide all of a sudden with a court case still PENDING! That 3 years is long enough we give up we want our money? The govt can then say hey these people are willing giving these up and gives them a major PR win. Also if they are setting up a price structure for the govt, then they will know exactly what they are worth as appraised by "industry experts". One less step for the libs to do to set up confidcation program. Give the govt and inch and they take a mile. This is a huge step back and risks accelerating the confiscation program. Very short sighted move. Make a deal with the enemy of your customers, what cud go wrong?! This shud have been obvious.

[Grizzlypeg]

It's regrettable that its come down to this, but I see this as little different than returning the merchandise to the distributor. So the Liberals get to brag about this. They are only preaching to the choir. I can't expect businesses to hold inventory they can't sell. I have complete confidence in the Hipwells acting in the best interests of firearms owners. I don't know anyone in Manitoba, or perhaps Canada that has been as outspoken, or better at filling the desires of firearms owners to obtain the best and the coolest of guns, and hosting the best events from IPSC, to pin shoots, running deer shoots, machine gun shoots and Wolverine days. I will continue to buy from them.

[Joel]

By saying "yes I posses x amount of assault style weapons and want money from taxpayers for compensation" What do you think this does for our credibility after we have been arguieing this whole ban is BS? We have been fighting this for so long and to decide all of a sudden with a court case still PENDING! That 3 years is long enough we give up we want our money? The govt can then say hey these people are willing giving these up and gives them a major PR win. Also if they are setting up a price structure for the govt, then they will know exactly what they are worth as appraised by "industry experts". One less step for the libs to do to set up confidcation program. Give the govt and inch and they take a mile. This is a huge step back and risks accelerating the confiscation program. Very short sighted move. Make a deal with the enemy of your customers, what cud go wrong?! This shud have been obvious.

So if someone holds a gun to your head and says "give me all your money and I'll give you 10% back, or I'll kill you" you're okay with it if you make sure you really get the 10%? And whose mind, who matters, would such a thing actually change?

The idea that your stuff is going to be stolen anyway, and you still don't like the idea of your stuff being stolen, but in this case you get something back for it, is hardly rocket science.

"Well they took the money for the stuff they were going to lose either way, they must be ok with this!" say all the people who actually make a difference? Like who?

"We give up we want the money"...what? lol. The entire fight was in just saying no to the money?

There was going to be a price list anyway. There was going to be an amount the govt pays per gun anyway. The govt would be saying it was arrived at by "industry experts" anyway...no matter who did it. So again, who's mind changes here that was otherwise not on board with this?

First we'd have to know how things would've gone otherwise and how to best quantify the shift in public perception. Not having the measurement of a consequence does not prove there is no consequence.

Soooooo we cannot even theorize one single likely consequence.

Figured.

[Mosin_redstar]

Wait for the facts and talk to you first? Not how extremists roll. Never miss an opportunity to tear each other apart.

Sorry you caught so much flak over this and it has to suck. Thanks for all you guys have done.

If it hadn't happen the firearms industry wouldnt be as divided as it is now after that bs move. We would still be in the fight as one cohesive industry, once one pillar caves the whole structure comes tumbling down. The libs knew this and the csaaa played right into it.

[Milanczar]

If it hadn't happen the firearms industry wouldnt be as divided as it is now after that bs move. We would still be in the fight as one cohesive industry, once one pillar caves the whole structure comes tumbling down. The libs knew this and the csaaa played right into it.

They are counting on the firearm owners who are so abused by the Liberals by now that they have complete Stockholm syndrome to such a degree

that they will tolerate, welcome and even demand abuse from just about anyone and as we can see from the sad examples, even defend people who work against their interests.

[Joel]

If it hadn't happen the firearms industry wouldnt be as divided as it is now after that bs move. We would still be in the fight as one cohesive industry, once one pillar caves the whole structure comes tumbling down. The libs knew this and the csaaa played right into it.

If we didn't love to dismember our own and roll around in the guts and call for boycotts and call people traitors and....then we wouldnt be so divided anyway.

So the Liberals knew our abysmal nature and lack of community resilience and targeted it? lol.

[700-223]

Unfortunately, if reimbursement is not unreasonable then the OIC is not unjust.
You can't suck and blow at the same time.

That’s not how it works. Saying you can’t sell something and refusing to reimburse someone for their losses due to the governments actions are two separate unjust actions. Saying one is only required because of the other does not negate that it would also be wrong not to reimburse people and businesses. Mandatory confiscation without reimbursement is not more just than confiscation without.

In any case, I think the CSAA made a mistake by engaging with the Liberals in good faith is clear. Other than saying they need to be reimbursed for their inventory and their losses IF the court rules the OIC legal is all that should have been said. Lambasting them as traitors who don’t care about the firearms ownership in Canada is incorrect and unhelpful.

[Mosin_redstar]

And whose mind, who matters would such a thing actually change?

The idea that your stuff is going to be stolen anyway, and you still don't like the idea of your stuff being stolen, but in this case you get something back for it, is hardly rocket science.

I guess that's the difference between you and I. Its called having morals. If somethings is wrong. ITS WRONG. I don't just give up because "they are going to steal it from me anyways". That is the problem with canada right now. Too many spineless people in this country that are willing to take pay out to turn a blind eye.
Have you ever thought of getting into politics? I think you'd fit in real well there.

[Joel]

[QUOTE=Mosin_redstar;19614269][QUOTE=Joel;19614252]And whose mind, who matters would such a thing actually change?

The idea that your stuff is going to be stolen anyway, and you still don't like the idea of your stuff being stolen, but in this case you get something back for it, is hardly rocket science. /

I guess that's the difference between you and I. Its called having morals. If somethings is wrong. ITS WRONG. I don't just give up because "they are going to steal it from me anyways". That is the problem with canada right now. Too many spineless people in this country that are willing to take pay out to turn a blind eye.
Have you ever thought of getting into politics? I think you'd fit in real well there.

You're the one who can't point out actual harm this causes. I'm asking about the practical harm this causes. I know. Speaking practically without rhetoric is hard.

if your retort is to get on a soap box and preach about how morally superior to everyone else you are, maybe you should run for office. If you're this good at sucking your own d*ck about how much better you are than everyone else you'd fit right in with the Liberals lol.