Canada's civilian gun culture should be part of our defence plan

zlatanski said:
Great just what we need, Moskal shills trying to repaint reality to justify their crimes against humanity
Click to expand...
Ah yes. And people in OdesSa burned themselves.
And civilians in Lugansk didnt die from Su25 strafing them.. it was... *checks notes* ... air conditioners blowing up...

Go get boosted
 
Last edited:
Our government embezzles our taxes and refuses to spend anything on our military (we have only 28,500 troops including reserves)

Now you want civilians armed with cooeys to act as a deterrent to the worlds most powerful army. F That
 
4star60 said:
That is pure BS. Just symbolic. The King has no authority.
Click to expand...

Thorsbear said:
Our government embezzles our taxes and refuses to spend anything on our military (we have only 28,500 troops including reserves)

Now you want civilians armed with cooeys to act as a deterrent to the worlds most powerful army. F That
Click to expand...
Send 'team Canada.' 😄
 
The Carny is the foreign internationalist choice who is in favour of 'closer ties with the EU.' This means the Carny wants to give vast sums to the EU dilitary buildup slush fund. We have got tit politishuns like climate barbie saying things like 'Canada does not, and will never face any existential threats, ever.' Rah rah team canadia. This is Canada's sole purpose. You should be thankful to be giving away the future of your next ten generations of descendants you ####ing reactionary heads on backwards ingrates! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Folks who wanted me in camps... denied medical...removal of my kids...and keep talking about how my existance and living standard are decadent and bad want me to... *checks notes* ... fight to defend their way of life with my life.

No yankee or ruski ever called me "people we cant tolerate" or flipped my desk chair and said "i wished you died".

My response to an invasion? Ottawa is that way. Here is some vodka/whisky and some ammo.
 
sddefault.jpg
 
cruisercam said:
I totally appreciate your post and enthusiasm. But Canada isn't a sovereign country it's run by the crown of England
Hence we're carney went first. Until Canada is actually sovereign nothing will change
Click to expand...
Yup, crown needs to go and should be a serious talk after the elections.
 
(Don't go hijacking the thread. If anything, we need a stronger Commonwealth alliance.)

On the original question, the incumbent government has spent the last several years demonstrating that they, not the Russians or Americans, are the greatest threat to our way of life. If we got invaded and they suddenly howled for us, I expect most who still have guns in the safe are going to keep those safes locked. Sure, a lot of downtown Liberals will call for a guerilla defense, but don't think they'll suddenly step up to the plate and risk their own lives.

Now, if a Poilievre government were to implement the plan in the original article and call on us to help, I think we'd seriously consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbd
Thorsbear said:
Our government embezzles our taxes and refuses to spend anything on our military (we have only 28,500 troops including reserves)

Now you want civilians armed with cooeys to act as a deterrent to the worlds most powerful army. F That
Click to expand...
It is a Stalinist technique when implemented. Stalin sent Ukrainians in the first waves against Finland, he didn't want them back.

In the modern Canadian context, it is what the team canada midgets really mean when they say: 'why don't you immigrate to the USA?'
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, are you expecting the following individuals to be part of a civil defence force?

dasfasdfasdf2.jpg


sadfadsfasdffdsa4.jpg


asdfasdf1.jpg


adjfhakldsfhkadlsf3.jpg


You know, the same people who, until just a couple of years ago—and some still today—were afraid to leave their homes without a mask and gloves to be in the trenches fighting a full-scale war like the one in Ukraine?


Scresadfasdfasdf5.jpg


Tell me more...

:popCorn::popCorn:
 
Unfortunately besides the recent patriotic “tough talk”… Canada’s de facto current strategy based on defensive assets ACTUALLY in place right now and the immediate future is still: “buy enough time until the Murricans get here.”

…yeah no competent military industrial complex and LPC attempts at a “post-national no nationalism” state that globalist, US-trained banker and self-described “European” Carney will very likely continue means the military and civil defense here is unable to quickly ramp up to “Wartime Mode”. Modern Canada has lost its way when it comes to competent national defense.
 
North_Sylva said:
https://www.readtheline.ca/p/tim-thurley-canadas-civilian-gun

By: Tim Thurley

Canadians pretended we didn’t need to take defence seriously. We justified it with fantasies — the world wasn’t that dangerous, threats were distant, and America would rescue us if needed. That delusion is dead. U.S. Republicans and some Democrats don’t trust us to defend our own territory. Trump openly floated annexation and made clear that military protection now comes at a price — potentially statehood. Canadian military leaders now describe our closest ally as “unpredictable and potentially unreliable.” And even when America was a sure bet, our overreliance was reckless. Sovereignty requires self-defence; outsourcing it means surrendering power.

We should take cues from nations in similar situations, like Finland. Both of us border stronger powers, control vast, harsh landscapes, and hold valuable strategic resources. We’re internally stable, democratic, and potential targets.

We also share a key strength — one that could expand our military recruitment, onshore defence production, rebuild social trust, and bolster deterrence: a strong civilian firearms tradition.

We should be doing everything we can to make that tradition a bigger part of Canadian defence, and a larger part of our economy, too.

That may sound absurd to some Canadians. It shouldn’t. Finland is taking full advantage by attempting to expand shooting and military training for civilians both through private and public ranges and the voluntary National Defence Training Association. Finland is seeking to massively upgrade civilian range capacity by building 300 new ones and upgrading others to encourage civilian interest in firearms and national defence, and is doing so in partnership with civilian firearm owners and existing non-government institutions.

Multiple other states near Finland are investing in similar programs. Poland is even involving the education system. Firearm safety training and target practice for school children are part of a new defence education curriculum component, which includes conflict zone survival, cybersecurity, and first aid training. Poland’s aim is to help civilians manage conflict zones, but also to bolster military recruitment.

Lithuania and Estonia encourage civilian marksmanship as part of a society-wide comprehensive defence strategy. The Lithuanian Riflemen's Union, one of the small nation’s most recognizable institutions, is a voluntary government-sponsored organization intended to prepare civilians for resistance to an occupying power. It has 15,000 members in a population of 2.8 million. The Estonian Defence League trains mostly-unpaid civilian volunteers in guerrilla warfare. It has an 80 per cent approval rating in Estonia, where over one in every 100 men and women with ordinary jobs have joined to learn defence techniques, including mastering standard-issue military service rifles that they may keep at home, ready to fight on a moment’s notice.

These strategies are modern. These countries are no strangers to cutting-edge modern warfare, necessitated by a common border with an aggressive Russia. But technologies like drones are not a replacement for a trained and motivated citizenry, as the Ukraine conflict illustrates. Against a stronger and more aggressive neighbour, these societies deter and respond to aggression through organized, determined, and trained populations prepared to resist attackers in-depth — by putting a potential rifle behind every blade of grass.

Canada, meanwhile, is spending money to hurt our own capacity. It’s coming back to bite us. The Trudeau government misused civilian firearm ownership as a partisan political wedge and ignored the grave flaws of that strategy when they were pointed out, hundreds of times, by good-faith critics. Thousands of firearm models have been banned at massive and increasing expense since 2020 despite no evident public safety benefit. In the recently concluded party leadership race, Mark Carney pledged to spend billions of dollars confiscating them. Government policies eliminating significant portions of business revenue have maimed a firearm industry that historically contributed to our defence infrastructure. Civilian range numbers, which often do double-duty with police and even military use, plunged from roughly 1,400 to 891 in five years. Without civilians to maintain ranges for necessary exercises and qualification shoots, governments must assume the operating expenses, construct new ranges, or fly participants elsewhere to train.

A serious, forward-thinking government could have anticipated these counterproductive consequences when Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas in 2014. It could have seen its backwardness before Bill C-21 received first reading in May 2022, a scant three months after Russian tanks openly rolled into the Ukrainian heartland and Ukraine handed firearms to civilians to help resist the invaders. Instead, our government remains committed to wedge politics.

Correction is possible. Canada has a long history of grassroots-oriented defence efforts ready to be adapted. Encouraging civilian marksmanship for military purposes was our government’s policy for much of our history. Shooting was the first Canadian sport to receive federal funding for that reason. The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (DCRA) was incorporated by Parliament in 1868 to ensure civilians and military members were competent with military firearms should the need to serve arise. The militia reports of the day make glowing reference to the interest in the shoots. Civilians competed at DCRA Service Rifle matches with standard-issue military rifles well into the 1970s. Despite teething issues, forces we raised through these traditions were competent and feared by our enemies.

Another institution loosely analogous to those of our allies is the Canadian Rangers, founded in 1942 to project sovereignty in sparsely populated regions of Canada. Rangers are issued a firearm that’s kept with them at home, though for self-defence and sustenance rather than combat. Many Rangers are from rural and northern regions and familiar with firearms.

We should reinvigorate the mandate of these existing organizations to meet modern defensive needs. The DCRA could expand and be refined with modern Finnish- or Estonian-style training, becoming a catalyst to reopen the urban ranges short-sightedly closed in the 1990s and 2000s. Supervised civilian service rifle competitions could once more be DCRA hosted. The DCRA is suited to sell surplused rifles and ammunition to licensed and screened owners to encourage self-funded practice, as our allies do. The objectives are to expand knowledge, create a vehicle for recruitment, improve our deterrent, and provide a stronger starting point should the worst happen.

A new style of tactically-trained and localized civil defence force, taking a role between the existing Rangers and the Primary Reserve, could fill critical gaps — especially in remote areas where it is not feasible to have a permanent presence. This force, made up of regional volunteers similar to the Baltic models, could complement a full-time professional core by increasing rapid response capabilities in the vast remote areas where we struggle to project power quickly, or by contributing trained manpower to large threat events.
Click to expand...
yeah that would work out good with people like third reich freeland and gov.trudeau at the helm. you remember what happened with the convoy? maybe we just need an actual government with politicians who work on diplomacy instead of hate, profits and cult mentalities. if you want war its yours. id rather have peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom