So where are we now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vishnu said:
I sincerely hope/wish the NFA, CSSA, CCFR would get together and organize protests.
Sadly though, the media would warp it into a bunch of red necks protesting. :(
Click to expand...

I wish that they would get together and lead us in new and different ways. The NSSF (equivalent to our CSAAA) in the USA did just that and I suspect that they can see a diminishing of the influence of the NRA and sagging support with the GOP. Change is upon them as well and some south of the border see the need to change with the times.

Choosing a separate, unexpected, positive and largely neutral direction for our efforts has a much better chance of unifying us as a cohesive force than the perpetual and nauseatingly repetitive topic of which guns we should have and which we shouldn't.

Responsible people should be able to have pretty much any gun that they can afford but the trick is to prove your trustworthiness first.
 
The liberals claiming to even know what hunters ‘need’ is absurd. Their claims that ‘hunters don’t use this for that’ is not because hunters would not use such firearms for hunting or varmint control, it’s because they are law-abiding and are following laws the Liberals set about what could and could not be used for hunting. That we are not shooting ground squirrels or coyotes with AR-15’s is simply because it’s not lawful to, not because they’re not good for such tasks, because they are. It’s as though they’ve told us what hammer to use on what nail, and then after years of compliance they say this type of hammer is no longer ‘needed’ because nobody uses it for that type of nail, yet they’re the only reason for the lack of it’s use for that purpose in the first place....

They do play the long game on this issue, divide and conquer. Chisel here, chip there.
 
Taking a cue from "rights" victories in the past and the evolution of societies along the lines of rights we have to morph our argument from what it is now - gun focused - to one which is focused on us as people.

And the first step is to establish our group as a collection of people who just happen to have an affection for politically incorrect objects.

Once we have that platform we can make demands for the right to pursue that passion.

We make the mistake of jumping to the demands when we have crafted our image to be one for a group who is best marginalized.
 
scout_289 said:
Taking a cue from "rights" victories in the past and the evolution of societies along the lines of rights we have to morph our argument from what it is now - gun focused - to one which is focused on us as people.

And the first step is to establish our group as a collection of people who just happen to have an affection for politically incorrect objects.

Once we have that platform we can make demands for the right to pursue that passion.

We make the mistake of jumping to the demands when we have crafted our image to be one for a group who is best marginalized.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%
But We need somebody or something (organization) to seriously step up and represent us as human beings. I certainly know the CCFR is trying it’s best. But we need all hands on deck now. NFA and CSSA as well. Black rifle shooters, pistol shooters, trap shooters, hunters, you name it, to coalesce as one group of “Canadians”
 
Last edited:
Country’s almost in a recession, Libs can’t adore any buybacks, which they know don’t work against criminal’s use of firearms
 
Vishnu said:
I agree 100%
But we somebody or something (organization) to seriously step up and represent us as human beings. I certainly know the CCFR is trying it’s best. But we need all hands on deck now. NFA and CSSA as well. Black rifle shooters, pistol shooters, trap shooters, hunters, you name it, to coalesce as one group of “Canadians”
Click to expand...

The gun orgs will have absolutely no valid argument at this point why they should not unify, one single focused umbrella group that would represent all the recreational firearms owners of Canada. Membership and club participation would increase as well as stature in a newly merged super org. This should have been done years ago.
 
Vishnu said:
I agree 100%
But we somebody or something (organization) to seriously step up and represent us as human beings. I certainly know the CCFR is trying it’s best. But we need all hands on deck now. NFA and CSSA as well. Black rifle shooters, pistol shooters, trap shooters, hunters, you name it, to coalesce as one group of “Canadians”
Click to expand...

All it would take is for one organization to hit on a keynote that resonates with a critical mass of gun owners to have enough of us to flock to the flag. Then the other orgs that stick entirely to the old ways or which are dysfunctional could be starved into cooperation or driven into obscurity and we would continue to grow with a unified passion and purpose.

The org that I look to do this is the CSAAA, ie the one in which Wolverine has already dipped their toe into the water with their annual charity raffle. A retail lead initiative also follows the model being developed in the USA - the retailers and manufacturers stand to lose the most from a slide into a "gun free" Canada. Our CSAAA also demonstrated that they have the credibility with the Liberals that they were specifically named to provide input into upcoming proposals for change. Build on that!

In the USA the biggest suicide prevention organization chose to pair with a highly respected "gun lobby" and have since been joined by Veterans' Affairs. This alliance has also made the antis in the USA livid because it has given gun owners new found credibility and a meme / partnership that is hard to challenge.

As one poster has / had as their sig line (paraphrased) "if you want to see what is successful, use the American example".
 
Vishnu said:
...another question I have regarding all this.....

Is it just me or all the non black rifle/pistol owners unusually quiet right now?

(Forgive the term...Fudds)
Click to expand...


The "No Compromise" and "the way we roll" groups are probably busy being busy elsewhere also.

The OP is looking for new ideas. Hard to post those when all you know is same old / same old and you get your jollies by stomping on anyone else who has thoughts trying to get us out of this mess.

I suspect that the non black gun / pistol groups are sitting back and reading this thread and not bothering to join in because they know that it will probably degenerate as so many threads do. "Digital feces" - I like that term.

Remember that the "non" group is by far our largest cohort in the gun movement and if we can't get them on board the myth of "2.2 million gun owners acting in unison" will forever remain just that, a myth.
 
Just the fact that Wolverine is asking for constructive input sets them (CSAAA) head and shoulders above the other orgs; each of which gives the appearance of being "the group to save us" if we just follow their lead to the letter and oh, send lots of money ..........
 
scout_289 said:
Just the fact that Wolverine is asking for constructive input sets them (CSAAA) head and shoulders above the other orgs; each of which gives the appearance of being "the group to save us" if we just follow their lead to the letter and oh, send lots of money ..........
Click to expand...

I guess we’ll all know where everybody stands on December 6th.
 
Vishnu said:
I guess we’ll all know where everybody stands on December 6th.
Click to expand...

All that may do is reaffirm, one more time, the perceptions that people have of them already. And those perceptions should have been pretty much already nailed down in the runup to C-71 and their performance during the heat of election ..........

In other words, how many times do we put our faith in them and in the old ways before we realize that they are yesterday's people - with the exception of the CSAAA (https://www.csaaa.org)?
 
trapoholic said:
All I'm saying is he left the windows of the cruiser wide open and walked the 30 yards into the gas station to pay. That was wrong.

As far as not being able to defend my family and home. Come try and harm them and see what happens. Your odds are absolute zero, you're not walking away.
Click to expand...

Easy there Keyboard Commando. My very simple point is that the law is not designed to let citizens protect themselves or their property with guns; only politicians and rich people get that luxury.
As for the cop, yup he should have rolled his windows up and have his long gun taken away until he learns proper safety techniques, if in fact the windows were down.
 
Wolverine originally asked about the political culture. Well in the case of the CPC they are, or better be, casting around for new ideas and with respect to guns it would be a good time to present something new and different to them.

Like the declaration states, there are many good reasons for responsible people to have guns and in recognition of those "rights" we are prepared to act in a concrete manner to enhance public safety - and not by giving up our guns.

All we would have to do to make that happen would be for those among us who are well connected in the party to use this teachable moment to build an entirely new approach into the firearms debate that would be unassailable by the progressives.
 
scout_289 said:
As one poster has / had as their sig line (paraphrased) "if you want to see what is successful, use the American example".
Click to expand...

To demonstrate that people can actually go to the moon and back, you use the American experience.
To demonstrate that public safety is not adversely affected by responsible people carrying to protect life, you use the American experience.
-- CLW.45
 
I think your assessment is more or less correct. Canada has moved to the left somewhat on social issues, and the environment. Unfortunately, the CPC is out of step and will have to accept the reality that it needs to rebrand itself if it is to reclaim government.

The issue for the conservatives has always been trying to retain support of the more right learning elements. It is not going to be an easy challenge, especially in time for the next election. I suspect that if Trudeau can manage to get a pipeline built, he may appease enough western voters to get elected with a majority, barring more colossal missteps.

Trudeau is the big concern. The anti-gun lobby has found a friend with Trudeau. If he was not at the head of the Liberal Party, our problems would be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, he is here for the next number of years. And I doubt he will listen to reason. He simply hates gun owners, notably those who favour "assault rifles." He knows he will never get our vote, and is prepared to write us off in favour of securing votes in urban areas.

Where does this leave the pro-firearms agenda? I think that preserving the current rights and privileges of firearms owners will mean a massive education campaign in the major cities. People need to understand that indigenous peoples with just 5% of the population account for a third of gun violence ad that gangs account for the bulk of the rest. Taking guns from mainstream population will solve nothing. Money from buyback programs is best spent handling social issues facing indigenous people and getting tough on crime.

Smoothbore said:
From reading the election analysis, this is what seems interesting:

Canada has seen the rise of the city states--like in Europe in the Middle Ages.
The population centres and knowledge industry and service jobs are
increasingly centred in just three places: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

These are populations that are younger, more educated, ethnically diverse, and tolerant
socially of issues like ### marriage, abortion, and the environment.

You cannot win a majority government without winning a substantial number of these seats.
This is the political reality of Canada today.

The Conservative message is not resonating with voters in these areas. The CPC lost something like
37 of 50 seats in the Toronto area. Changing leaders would help, but would not solve the lack of appeal
of the party's platform to these voters.

So, this is where we are now. If the Conservatives want to win majorities they will have to do some serious
rethinking of their platform beyond smaller government and lower taxes--items that hold little interest
to voters of the the three biggest cities--according to polling done in the election by (if I remember correctly) the Globe and Mail.

This is a serious, long-term problem--the Conservative message is not selling. Can it change and still be conservative?
I don't know. But endless leadership changes alone, will not solve the systemic issues.
Click to expand...
 
Redmaple said:
I think your assessment is more or less correct. Canada has moved to the left somewhat on social issues, and the environment. Unfortunately, the CPC is out of step and will have to accept the reality that it needs to rebrand itself if it is to reclaim government.

The issue for the conservatives has always been trying to retain support of the more right learning elements. It is not going to be an easy challenge, especially in time for the next election. I suspect that if Trudeau can manage to get a pipeline built, he may appease enough western voters to get elected with a majority, barring more colossal missteps.

Trudeau is the big concern. The anti-gun lobby has found a friend with Trudeau. If he was not at the head of the Liberal Party, our problems would be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, he is here for the next number of years. And I doubt he will listen to reason. He simply hates gun owners, notably those who favour "assault rifles." He knows he will never get our vote, and is prepared to write us off in favour of securing votes in urban areas.

Where does this leave the pro-firearms agenda? I think that preserving the current rights and privileges of firearms owners will mean a massive education campaign in the major cities. People need to understand that indigenous peoples with just 5% of the population account for a third of gun violence ad that gangs account for the bulk of the rest. Taking guns from mainstream population will solve nothing. Money from buyback programs is best spent handling social issues facing indigenous people and getting tough on crime.
Click to expand...

I respectfully suggest that the best way to show "them" that money can be better spent is by rolling up our sleeves and making it happen. Now there's an example to follow.
 
scout_289 said:
Wolverine originally asked about the political culture. Well in the case of the CPC they are, or better be, casting around for new ideas and with respect to guns it would be a good time to present something new and different to them.

Like the declaration states, there are many good reasons for responsible people to have guns and in recognition of those "rights" we are prepared to act in a concrete manner to enhance public safety - and not by giving up our guns.

All we would have to do to make that happen would be for those among us who are well connected in the party to use this teachable moment to build an entirely new approach into the firearms debate that would be unassailable by the progressives.
Click to expand...

I think we are in a stronger position then most of us think. Considering the tenuous grip that the Liberals have on the government and how radially divided the country is presently; any strongarm tactics pushed by the liberals regarding gun seizures will likely blow up in their faces.
Massive noncompliance mixed with a divided country will plunge Canada into legal choas.

The turd has two choices: limpwrist his banning of "scarry looking guns" thus appeasing Lib croud or attenpt an ernest mass seizure of firearms across a polarized country that dont give a damn about his policies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom