When pistols return: your first buy?

calmex said:
I like to think Pierre will roll back the handgun transfer ban. ... Do I think it will actually happen? The handgun transfer ban rollback might.
Canada, without the ability to buy oneself a new pistola every now and then, is just one more drab and semi-impoverished land ... , too woke and effeminate by far, and full of laws made for citiots with a healthcare system on the brink of self-destruction and people who have lost all hope.
Click to expand...

Calmex,

No, there will be no handgun transfer ban roll back. Yes, it is the right thing to do, sure. Pierre Poilièvre never said that he would roll back the handgun transfer ban. Never. Pierre Poilièvre is doing his very best to win the next federal election - him, the "right wing" man, so to speak, in a sea of left thinking Canadians. I wish him luck and he will need a massive dose of luck to make it. Money will not be enough.
Canadians do not care about Guns. Canadians do not want to look like the bad "Maricans". Canadian love their Gobernmints and the Police of their Gobernmints. A lot.

Canadians too woke and effeminate by far ? You bet ! And then some.

Not to worry. Some bad - really bad - people living in Canada will NEVER be disarmed. Those very bad people have been planning for that kind of Gun Apocalypse for a long time.

Not to worry. It will be all the way down from here.
 
Last edited:
Snowy Owl said:
Calmex,

No, there will be no handgun transfer ban roll back. Yes, it is the right thing to do, sure. Pierre Poilièvre never said that he would roll back the handgun transfer ban. Never.
Click to expand...
there is no need to roll it back. All they have to do is simply open up the exceptions to include other levels of competitive shooters. I will see Pierre next week, and if I get a chance, am going to ask him direct.
 
Gindryden said:
there is no need to roll it back. All they have to do is simply open up the exceptions to include other levels of competitive shooters. I will see Pierre next week, and if I get a chance, am going to ask him direct.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the ideal way. Open it up to the IPSC, the IDPA and even PPC and require that they have some sort of handgun-training safety course that you have to be able to prove you've taken. I would not back forcing a person to be a member of the IPSC or IDPA or PPC League forever because then the cost of just recreational shooting could go bonkers, but a safety-course is never a bad idea, and proof you took it should be enough. And problem solved.

Of course, then some idiot will decide that you have to compete in "so many matches per year" or turn up to " 'X' number of practices" to justify your ownership. I mean, it's a tangled web of B.S. always. The media concentrates on one idiot somewhere going postal with a firearm. The hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of potentially violent confrontations each year that just "disappear into thin air" when a pocket snubby or pocket automatic suddenly appears in the hand of our trustworthy good-guy or good-girl and the evildoers suddenly remember they left a cake in the oven and bugger off are never reported and are constantly overlooked. That may not happen much in Canada -- or it may -- but it sure happens in Central Mexico. Guaranteed.

You take every lefty voting Liberal you know and put them in a really violent, dangerous city for an extended period of time and you'll see them suddenly reviewing their stance on privately owned weaponry. Schmucks. Or maybe not, many of them are simply stupid and brainwashed and want the World to be the way they want it to be. Again: schmucks.

I saw Pierre last week and all we talked about was the laser surgery vs. contacts sort of thing. Great guy, though! I'd sit and have a pile of beers with him anyday. (I had a friend who had a beer with Obama, and all I could say was a sourly sarcastic "really???"). But that's just me. Enjoy your meet 'n greet!
 
Last edited:
Gindryden said:
there is no need to roll it back. All they have to do is simply open up the exceptions to include other levels of competitive shooters. I will see Pierre next week, and if I get a chance, am going to ask him direct.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how he will answer that question because he is trying very hard to appeal to the left.
 
BillSussman44 said:
I'm curious how he will answer that question because he is trying very hard to appeal to the left.
Click to expand...

Well, as he told me to my face: "I have to win first". And he's correct. If he comes out and says silly crap (and it is silly crap) like "I'm going to scrap the handgun freeze" he is giving away a golden opportunity to the other side to absolutely fricasee him. He cannot even say things like that quiety. Not if he wants to win. He has to pull in people who formerly voted for the Dippies or the Libbies, and he can't do that saying things that trigger them.

The gun owners who can't understand that have to read between the lines. If they are unwilling to do that, they can throw their vote away on Max. And if Pierre doesn't deliver, well then you either have to live your life as an unhappy person here, or broaden your horizons and look elsewhere. You have just one chance, and it's Pierre. I won't give you odds, but I am personally secure in the feeling that he's trying. There is no other option out there that has a chance of dethroning Trudeau that will improve the gun ownership situation in Canada. So there's not much debate to be had on the topic.

He has to appeal to a much broader range than just the gun owners. And so, what else is new?
 
Last edited:
calmex said:
Well, as he told me to my face: "I have to win first". And he's correct. If he comes out and says silly crap (and it is silly crap) like "I'm going to scrap the handgun freeze" he is giving away a golden opportunity to the other side to absolutely fricasee him. He cannot even say things like that quiety. Not if he wants to win. He has to pull in people who formerly voted for the Dippies or the Libbies, and he can't do that saying things that trigger them.

The gun owners who can't understand that have to read between the lines. If they are unwilling to do that, they can throw their vote away on Max. And if Pierre doesn't deliver, well then you either have to live your life as an unhappy person here, or broaden your horizons and look elsewhere. You have just one chance, and it's Pierre. I won't give you odds, but I am personally secure in the feeling that he's trying. There is no other option out there that has a chance of dethroning Trudeau that will improve the gun ownership situation in Canada. So there's not much debate to be had on the topic.

He has to appeal to a much broader range than just the gun owners. And so, what else is new?
Click to expand...
Well said and spot on!
 
calmex said:
Well, as he told me to my face: "I have to win first". And he's correct. If he comes out and says silly crap (and it is silly crap) like "I'm going to scrap the handgun freeze" he is giving away a golden opportunity to the other side to absolutely fricasee him. He cannot even say things like that quiety. Not if he wants to win. He has to pull in people who formerly voted for the Dippies or the Libbies, and he can't do that saying things that trigger them.

The gun owners who can't understand that have to read between the lines. If they are unwilling to do that, they can throw their vote away on Max. And if Pierre doesn't deliver, well then you either have to live your life as an unhappy person here, or broaden your horizons and look elsewhere. You have just one chance, and it's Pierre. I won't give you odds, but I am personally secure in the feeling that he's trying. There is no other option out there that has a chance of dethroning Trudeau that will improve the gun ownership situation in Canada. So there's not much debate to be had on the topic.

He has to appeal to a much broader range than just the gun owners. And so, what else is new?
Click to expand...

Yea that's why I'm curious how he would answer that question. lol
 
BillSussman44 said:
Yea that's why I'm curious how he would answer that question. lol
Click to expand...

Bill, first of all, I agree with you. However:

Winston, I believe, said that "In war, the truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." I would suspect that at the upper reaches of politics that is also true. I believe even attempting to answer the question would be almost political suicide. It's a Catch-22 question. It sewered O'Toole. I believe that the question simply must be avoided. If I was pressed for further opinion, I could only answer "he needs to win first".

If he doesn't do what's needed, then the Canadian toilet-tank spiral will continue. Even if he does "enough for now", it will never be enough going forward because the pressure to disarm will continue unabated. I do believe that the forces against us are so great that it would take a societal shift to change things, perhaps even an international calamity. These are things I do not hope for, having spent enough time in Central America and Mexico during much of their "troubles", I think that social collapse is not a good thing. It doesn't always go the way one wants it to.

In another thread somewhere on this CGN Forum a member has asked: "Who will take the guns away from the bad guys?" This is what needs to be focused on. Because it's the elephant in the room. Everytime the Mexican Security Forces have attempted it, it's been a disaster. It's not because they're undertrained or unready: it's because the bad buys are totally trained, equipped, and ready and will not play fair, something which society seems to always insist on from our Security Forces. We are entering an area here where I cannot write about certain aspects of the topic without betraying confidences, but believe me it's a huge problem which will totally not be resolved by collecting firearms from the law abiding.

I do not believe Canadian gangs are anywhere near as sophisticated or as well armed as the Mexican and Central American groups, but they would still be pretty dangerous if confronted. It's an interesting topic for sure, and one I have my own opinions on. But the real question remains: who is going to take the guns from the bad guys? The fact that every possible alternative seems to be on the table instead of answering that question tells one something.
 
I don't know what pistol I would get, but I think i'd definitely get a hand gun of some sort.

That's a big change for me.

I'm a self-confessed FUDD, I never saw any need for a handgun, when I did my PAL I just did the regular PAL only, I didn't bother with the RPAL because I thought "why would you ever need a hand gun?"
But now that they've taken away the option, I regret not exercising that option while I had it, and if the next government does bring handguns back, I would jump at the chance while I had it.

I wonder how many other new handgun owners trudeau unintentionally created?
 
calmex said:
Bill, first of all, I agree with you. However:

Winston, I believe, said that "In war, the truth is so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." I would suspect that at the upper reaches of politics that is also true. I believe even attempting to answer the question would be almost political suicide. It's a Catch-22 question. It sewered O'Toole. I believe that the question simply must be avoided. If I was pressed for further opinion, I could only answer "he needs to win first".

If he doesn't do what's needed, then the Canadian toilet-tank spiral will continue. Even if he does "enough for now", it will never be enough going forward because the pressure to disarm will continue unabated. I do believe that the forces against us are so great that it would take a societal shift to change things, perhaps even an international calamity. These are things I do not hope for, having spent enough time in Central America and Mexico during much of their "troubles", I think that social collapse is not a good thing. It doesn't always go the way one wants it to.

In another thread somewhere on this CGN Forum a member has asked: "Who will take the guns away from the bad guys?" This is what needs to be focused on. Because it's the elephant in the room. Everytime the Mexican Security Forces have attempted it, it's been a disaster. It's not because they're undertrained or unready: it's because the bad buys are totally trained, equipped, and ready and will not play fair, something which society seems to always insist on from our Security Forces. We are entering an area here where I cannot write about certain aspects of the topic without betraying confidences, but believe me it's a huge problem which will totally not be resolved by collecting firearms from the law abiding.

I do not believe Canadian gangs are anywhere near as sophisticated or as well armed as the Mexican and Central American groups, but they would still be pretty dangerous if confronted. It's an interesting topic for sure, and one I have my own opinions on. But the real question remains: who is going to take the guns from the bad guys? The fact that every possible alternative seems to be on the table instead of answering that question tells one something.
Click to expand...

Hand wringing.

We used to be a society that didn't even tolerate homosexuals congregating in clubs for their bum chum activities...we'd send the cops in, who would tear the doors of the place beat the ever lovin outta anyone stupid enough to object to being arrested, and their names would be broadcast publically. While there has always been gang activity in Canada, they always walked a razors edge when it came to their activities and law enforcement. Biker gangs in particular, so long as they were on the down low, they were tolerated. As soon as a "war" spilled into the public venues...again, the cops tore the doors off their establishments and beat the ever lovin' outta anyone stupid enough to...you get my point.

So long as our Police force was a cohesive, violent, and organized entity, it was an appropriate yin to criminalities yan . Then police agencies started lowering standards. No longer 6' and 180lbs men or larger, smaller men, women, University degree...did any of those alterations help with public perceptions when BLM fired up full steam ahead? Of course not, they'd rather clutch their pearls when listening to sob stories from some alcohol addicted Indigenous murderer/rapist/ thief about how tough life is on the Rez.

No sir, until we go back to a proper (and at times violent) police force, and until we as a society acknowledge its necessity, we're all as good as Christians in the lion's den. Victims, awaiting our turn. The consolation of course, is that the University educated police force will likely catch our particular perpetrator after the matter, who in turn will only serve the minimum of penance to a society he despises anyhow. Our checks and balances are all off.
 
The problem is, any law that is broken or any constitutional right that is violated to take down the gangs can be employed against you. And me. It's a fine line to walk.

A friend of mine -- at a time when I was drunk and several close friends were suggesting I should run as a candidate to be Mayor of San Miguel (yes, we did sober up) quietly asked me: "If you run and win, can I be the Chief of your Secret Police?"

Burping loudly, I asked him: "What makes you so sure I'll have a Secret Police?"

He just laughed and took a sip of his beer and said: "Because I know you. You'll have a Secret Police."

Who exactly is going to get those guns from the bad guys, and who exactly do you trust with this power?
 
calmex said:
The problem is, any law that is broken or any constitutional right that is violated to take down the gangs can be employed against you. And me. It's a fine line to walk.

A friend of mine -- at a time when I was drunk and several close friends were suggesting I should run as a candidate to be Mayor of San Miguel (yes, we did sober up) quietly asked me: "If you run and win, can I be the Chief of your Secret Police?"

Burping loudly, I asked him: "What makes you so sure I'll have a Secret Police?"

He just laughed and took a sip of his beer and said: "Because I know you. You'll have a Secret Police."

Who exactly is going to get those guns from the bad guys, and who exactly do you trust with this power?
Click to expand...

Good men who hold bad intentions against those who seek to harm our society. That's who I trust.
 
Callee said:
I don't know what pistol I would get, but I think i'd definitely get a hand gun of some sort.

That's a big change for me.

I'm a self-confessed FUDD, I never saw any need for a handgun, when I did my PAL I just did the regular PAL only, I didn't bother with the RPAL because I thought "why would you ever need a hand gun?"
But now that they've taken away the option, I regret not exercising that option while I had it, and if the next government does bring handguns back, I would jump at the chance while I had it.

I wonder how many other new handgun owners trudeau unintentionally created?
Click to expand...

Yes, but what handgun would you buy first? If handguns come back, what's the first one you want?
 
Snider shooter said:
The one pistol I would like is a 1911 in 10 mm.
Click to expand...

I impulsively bought a NIB stainless Colt Delta Elite in late 2021. One of the best decisions I ever made. Still haven't bought any ammo. I was planning on having it customized at Heirloom Precision but that's a wash now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom