Front & Centre - CCFR's Media Blitz

Something is fundamentally wrong with Canadaian politics. Who ever gets a majority govt can just make new rules with ZERO consideration for any personal property/liberty rights. Feels like feudal times where us peasants are at the mercy of the aristocracy. And its time for torches and pitchforks.
 
I’m liking this theme the CCFR is following: they take my membership fees and donations, and then I see them increasing their public presence and putting pressure to the media & government. Time and time again I see them putting in effort and fighting the fight, that’s a lot more than I can say of a few other organizations. CCFR, and Rod G in particular are number one in my books and they just earned themselves another donation:)

Nice to see results for your money, if not results at least effort being made goes a long way. CCFR does a heck of a lot more than I do sitting at my keyboard wearing out the keys sending un-answered emails till my fingers seize up.
 
Raspern said:
The polls don't show the Libs holding another majority, they show them tied or just behind the Cons and have for a while. Even their own internal polls show them tied with the Cons, and that was before the corruption involving the pipeline approval process or the handgun ban nonsense
Click to expand...

I wish you were right, but as of August 2018, the aggregate polling data do, indeed, show the Libs out front again.
 
Remember all that polls don't mean much. In this day of call display, nobody answers the phone when they don't recognize the number, and especially when they see it's a pollster. The only people who answer are the lonely, the bored, and those without call display. So the results of polls are skewed. Don't believe them.

Only if we get out and rally our family, friends and associates are we going to prevail.

Talk to people, get them out trying firearms, teach them that we are responsible gun owners.

Grassroots action on our part is the only way.

For a whole $.02

Dave
 
I listened to victoria cbc at 8:10, horrible for our side, I thought the cbc host was good, but ccfr I don't know about, the host said, I know why a person in canada needs a riffle for hunting or target shooting, but why would a person in canada need a handgun. Now the host gave what I thought would be the answer in the riffle part, for target shooting, but the CCFR speaker first went off about why would government want to take them, asked again, why would a person in canada need a handgun, he hummed and hawes some more, and when asked the third time, ( and I'm just thinking, answer the question, target,target ) but no, after saying uh, uh well for a minute, he answers, for personal protection. I think, what? No don't say that. Host says, for personal protection? He says yes.
WTF, general public doesn't want to hear personal protection, why couldn't he just say target shooting, which is what we all put on our liscence aplication, I know there are a few for protection, miners, trappers, but we sure don't want everyone thinking hundreds of thousands of Rpal holders are going to shoot anyone, even in self defense.
 
Greglc said:
I listened to victoria cbc at 8:10, horrible for our side, I thought the cbc host was good, but ccfr I don't know about, the host said, I know why a person in canada needs a riffle for hunting or target shooting, but why would a person in canada need a handgun. Now the host gave what I thought would be the answer in the riffle part, for target shooting, but the CCFR speaker first went off about why would government want to take them, asked again, why would a person in canada need a handgun, he hummed and hawes some more, and when asked the third time, ( and I'm just thinking, answer the question, target,target ) but no, after saying uh, uh well for a minute, he answers, for personal protection. I think, what? No don't say that. Host says, for personal protection? He says yes.
WTF, general public doesn't want to hear personal protection, why couldn't he just say target shooting, which is what we all put on our liscence aplication, I know there are a few for protection, miners, trappers, but we sure don't want everyone thinking hundreds of thousands of Rpal holders are going to shoot anyone, even in self defense.
Click to expand...

Your kidding. Did he say the same for Restricted rifles?
 
Maxime Berniers recent departure from the Conservative party may have the disastrous effect of spliiting the Conservative vote. Now is not the time to divide the right.
 
Rescue85 said:
Maxime Berniers recent departure from the Conservative party may have the disastrous effect of spliiting the Conservative vote. Now is not the time to divide the right.
Click to expand...



Remember when the last non-restricted firearms registry was introduced in the '90's? Anyone recall what a number of farmers did with their guns? As I recall they placed them in the ground all over their land, with mapped locations and told the libs to stuff it. I know this scenario is considerably different, but that's what I'm prepared to do. I don't care if government watch dogs are watching this site, and tracking comments. I am at a point where I will play the martyr if need be, maybe that'll be what it takes to draw public attention to this BS. Though it is a poor comparison, as an example, if they were to announce that all two story homes were deemed to be more likely to cause loss of life during a fire, therefore all two story homes need to be left and turned over to the government, would people be so quick to comply? I know I wouldn't. Like I said it is a poor example, but I have many $000's invested in guns, I'm not just going to hand them over, especially under the guise that it's for public safety. We all know it addresses absolutely 0 gun crime. I have the luxury of knowing that if I do a stretch, my wife and kids will still be well looked after ( and for all those that want to suggest it's easy to say, I have been there before, in a different life time). This is something I feel very strongly about, and I will not comply with this kind of logic and bull####. If they could even come up with solid stats that legally owned guns are part of the issue I would consider it, but it's all so conniving and blatantly corrupt that I feel it's the only way to play them at their game. So that is what I intend to do
 
Greglc said:
I listened to victoria cbc at 8:10, horrible for our side, I thought the cbc host was good, but ccfr I don't know about, the host said, I know why a person in canada needs a riffle for hunting or target shooting, but why would a person in canada need a handgun. Now the host gave what I thought would be the answer in the riffle part, for target shooting, but the CCFR speaker first went off about why would government want to take them, asked again, why would a person in canada need a handgun, he hummed and hawes some more, and when asked the third time, ( and I'm just thinking, answer the question, target,target ) but no, after saying uh, uh well for a minute, he answers, for personal protection. I think, what? No don't say that. Host says, for personal protection? He says yes.
WTF, general public doesn't want to hear personal protection, why couldn't he just say target shooting, which is what we all put on our liscence aplication, I know there are a few for protection, miners, trappers, but we sure don't want everyone thinking hundreds of thousands of Rpal holders are going to shoot anyone, even in self defense.
Click to expand...


I know what you mean but that is still not a winnable argument.

Who NEEDS to target shoot? The minute we go there we concede the point that if we cannot demonstrate a need, we should not have them. Its fighting the antis fight on their home turf.

At least it was a moral and honest answer.

All I have to say is "Your need to shoot paper targets doesn't exist, and is outweighed if one life is saved" and I guarantee you no one who is not pro gun is swayed.

My answer would be any damned thing you can do with an NR long gun except they already passed all kinds of laws that took away the freedom to do those legitimate activities with pistols, for nothing. Why? Because it makes this ban so much easier now. We can talk about whether or not YOU need any of the myriad of things you have at home that kill far more Canadians than guns do every year but we aren't the ones who think banning inanimate objects are going to help with crime.
 
Last edited:
Greglc said:
I listened to victoria cbc at 8:10, horrible for our side, I thought the cbc host was good, but ccfr I don't know about, the host said, I know why a person in canada needs a riffle for hunting or target shooting, but why would a person in canada need a handgun. Now the host gave what I thought would be the answer in the riffle part, for target shooting, but the CCFR speaker first went off about why would government want to take them, asked again, why would a person in canada need a handgun, he hummed and hawes some more, and when asked the third time, ( and I'm just thinking, answer the question, target,target ) but no, after saying uh, uh well for a minute, he answers, for personal protection. I think, what? No don't say that. Host says, for personal protection? He says yes.
WTF, general public doesn't want to hear personal protection, why couldn't he just say target shooting, which is what we all put on our liscence aplication, I know there are a few for protection, miners, trappers, but we sure don't want everyone thinking hundreds of thousands of Rpal holders are going to shoot anyone, even in self defense.
Click to expand...

As stated above, the question around "Need" is the issue. It's a loaded question that should not be relevant in an open and civil conversation about pros and cons of guns in society..... but at the end of the day if pushed to answer in the context of "need" then personal protection of life is the only real need a civilian would have, same as for the Police.
 
The fact is that we determine nothing else in our lives on the basis of "need'. That's why we have cars that can go faster than the speed limit, bigger houses than are necessary, marble contertops, large lawns, holidays from work, recreational activities etc etc. The whole "need" argument is really a red herring trap. We don't conduct the rest of our lives on the basis of "need" so it should not even enter into the firearms conversation. For me, owning guns is like a recreational hobby, no less than someone who does woodworking, coin collecting, skiing, or quilting. As an ex-infantry soldier I appreciate firarms as "finely made tools", no less than anyone in these other hobbies. In my humble opinion the whole "personal protection" argument is a dead-ender that is not supported by either Canadian law, our general experience as a population, or, more to the point, mainstreeam political thinking in Canada. Just don't go there. I may get blasted for what I just said but that is how I see it and I am gald to contribute to the conversation.
 
The personal protection conversation starts with elderly people and women asking Trudeau why they can't protect themselves with basic tools like pepperspray?
 
The Vancouver one was well done I think. The host wasn't trying to play "gotcha" too hard and our side responded with nothing but clear and cogent points.

Rescue85 said:
Maxime Berniers recent departure from the Conservative party may have the disastrous effect of spliiting the Conservative vote. Now is not the time to divide the right.
Click to expand...

Greglc said:
I didn't hear any talk of restricted riffles, but I missed first minute or so, damn boss called just as it came on.
Click to expand...

You should be able to listen to it again on their site.
 
It’s definitely good to see. I was looking at the time slots, they’re very early, perhaps too early for most people to hear it in a lot of places. Especially in the west.
 
I like guitars, have about a dozen, mostly six strings.

I imagine like any in animate object they could be used as a tool of evil...intent is the key for any dialogue on this.

Ridiculous situation we are in.
 
Big Brother said:
I like guitars, have about a dozen, mostly six strings.

I imagine like any in animate object they could be used as a tool of evil...intent is the key for any dialogue on this.

Ridiculous situation we are in.
Click to expand...

Six strings are ok (for now),..... but no body needs a 12 string!
I hope your arsenal is safely stored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom