Wow, what a thread!
It looks to me that there are two positions here.
The first position, let's call it the "resistance" position, says the liberals are the enemy, and any and all co-operation with the enemy is collaboration, and collaborators are traitors. Instead, we must resist till the very end - fight 'em till we can't.
The second position, let's call it the "collaborators" , says that if we co-operate a little with the enemy, they, in turn, will let us live on and survive - so we do what it takes to survive. We go along to get along.
It would be easy for someone, evaluating those two positions, to get sucked into the heroic idea. They might start thinking of world war two and the heroic resistance against the nazis - and when the nazi's were eventually beaten, remember the awesome justice they metted out against those collaborators who helped the nazis?!
We might even think of today and Ukraine - how at the start a lot of people said that Ukraine should submit and co-operate in order to survive; if they conceded eastern Ukraine to russia, for example, then maybe putin would be appeased and leave them alone. But of course, that's not what ukraine did! Zelynski said "I don't need a ride out of here- I need ammunition!" And those brave ukrainians chose death rather than surrender. Remember that? "Russian warship... go ##### yourself!"
Thinking of examples like that, we'd all want to be the heros - especially when our actual daily lives are just regular go to work, do our jobs, come home and watch the leafs lose.
But here's the thing: those situations are totally different, and if we apply the logic of one situation to a different one, we're going to be led astray.
In those cases, the "enemy" really was a foreign invader - an actual enemy - and when choosing to resist, there was actually a chance that, against overwhelming odds, the resistance could win - as does seem to be happening in Ukraine.
Here with us, today, the "enemy" is actually the legally elected government, and at the end of the day, unless we think we're going to literally rise up in an actual armed rebellion (which, I shouldn't have to say, is absolutely not going to happen), we will eventually submit to the government. You may not like it, you may do it with all the grumbling, complaining, and anger that you can muster, but in the end you will submit, or eventually they'll just take all your stuff and throw you in jail.
So given that this isn't a situation where we can heroically resist, but one where we will do what they say eventually, what's the best way forward? Barring a change in government, all that prohibited stock cannot be sold. If they just sit on that inventory, these small stores will go bankrupt. Co-operating with the government on some sort of stock buy-back is the only way for them to survive. The "collaborators" should therefore really be re-named "the survivors" .
What's the alternative? They resist, and do not survive.
And what do you have then?
A much weaker gun industry in canada. A place where technically guns are legal and technically you can own them - but there's no place left to buy them!
Can't you see that outcome is exactly what the liberals are hoping for? Can"t you see that's exactly what the liberals want to happen? Everytime another gun store closes, a liberal gets their wings!
So you can buy into the fake and mis-applied heroism of the "resist" narrative, and you can proclaim your boycott of this store or that, but by doing so you will be playing right into the liberal's hands, and you will be contributing to the decline and fall of the gun industry in canada.
Do you see that? You'll be doing the liberal's work for them.
In other words, the "resistance" needs to be renamed "the patsies"
Dont be a patsy!
