RCMP move to ban semi-automatic rifles

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by iFish

This ain't 'merica boys! Keep calm it was just a question. People seem to get their panties in a knot over nothing. He just wants to know what you'd use a semi auto for.
BACK to the subject at hand - has anyone heard anything new? I've been off the radio stream for a bit.

So why the fixation on type of action? This aint jollie olde Englande yet ol' chap. Though there are plenty of left wing DBs who would like to foist their ways upon us. Clear enough?

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Now that was funny

Will the new cash flow for criminal organizations be semi autos after they loose there money trees ?

It will definitely boost cash flow to purchase cocacaine and heroin

[fitzy]

Here's a question for you we were just talking about at work. If giving up your semi autos to prove that it had no impact on gun crime meant that our government dropped the idea of further gun control would you do it?
We all know taking away semis won't change a thing.

And before you attack me its just a hypothetical we were talking about it and a guy I worked with brought it up.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

So why the fixation on type of action? This aint jollie olde Englande yet ol' chap. Though there are plenty of left wing DBs who would like to foist their ways upon us. Clear enough?

You might have forgotten but the entire thread is only about 1 type of action....

[Opalsasquatch]

Did crime drop when they wouldn't let full auto owners even take their legally owned firearms to the range?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

You might have forgotten but the entire thread is only about 1 type of action....

And in pretty much every country where firearms were banned or severely restricted, they started with full autos, then progressed to semi autos, and then on to pump actions etc. Only a short sighted, very naive person would not realize that this is only the start.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by fitzy

Here's a question for you we were just talking about at work. If giving up your semi autos to prove that it had no impact on gun crime meant that our government dropped the idea of further gun control would you do it?
We all know taking away semis won't change a thing.

And before you attack me its just a hypothetical we were talking about it and a guy I worked with brought it up.

This person you worked with was that individual with a government agency?

[Ursus_Major]

Originally Posted by fitzy

Here's a question for you we were just talking about at work. If giving up your semi autos to prove that it had no impact on gun crime meant that our government dropped the idea of further gun control would you do it?
We all know taking away semis won't change a thing.

And before you attack me its just a hypothetical we were talking about it and a guy I worked with brought it up.

I don't like the “If” part in your question, so answer is NO.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

Here's a question for you we were just talking about at work. If giving up your semi autos to prove that it had no impact on gun crime meant that our government dropped the idea of further gun control would you do it?
We all know taking away semis won't change a thing.

And before you attack me its just a hypothetical we were talking about it and a guy I worked with brought it up.

The question is pure nonsense, and discussing it is a total waste of time. First, no government would ever make any such guarantee. Second, even if you could get a government to make such a guarantee, the government would twist the statistics to have them indicate that crime was reduced because of the semi auto ban.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by purgatory.sv

This person you worked with was that individual with a government agency?

No he operates oil wells .... makes a mean tinfoil hat though.

[purgatory.sv]

Thank you.

[Brad6510]

IMO no government should have any right to take away legally acquired property. It has been proven time and time again, that gun restrictions do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent gun related crime. The real questions we need to be asking are why do they liberals want our guns, who the hell made the RCMP the authority on what we do with our freedoms, but most importantly, what are WE going to do about it?

The anti-gunners pick us off slowly and easily because we are not organized, have no clear consensus and scattered representation. We are our own worst enemy. Time to put aside our differences and band together. Show Canada that we are regular people that enjoy a hobby. Whether its hunting, plinking, F-class, 3-gun or ipsc, who cares? We have the numbers, we need to stand against the bullies. I'm not advocating violence, that is extremely counter productive and exactly how the anti's see us. Social media can be very powerful. The CCFR is showing great promise and is a well run group that deserves support. There is lots we can do. Take an anti to the range, expose them to what they fear and show them how unwarranted the fears are. Competition guys, invite local media out, get exposure, grow the sports, involve the youth as they are the ones that will pick up the fight.

I'm new to firearms and competition shooting, but the passion takes hold and burns deep. Every mind we change, every positive story we get put in the news is one step closer to gaining back some freedoms. This could be the most important 4 years in history for our sports, don't give it up because the enemy seems to powerful.

Keep shootin guys!

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Brad6510

IMO no government should have any right to take away legally acquired property. It has been proven time and time again, that gun restrictions do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent gun related crime. The real questions we need to be asking are why do they liberals want our guns, who the hell made the RCMP the authority on what we do with our freedoms, but most importantly, what are WE going to do about it?

The anti-gunners pick us off slowly and easily because we are not organized, have no clear consensus and scattered representation. We are our own worst enemy. Time to put aside our differences and band together. Show Canada that we are regular people that enjoy a hobby. Whether its hunting, plinking, F-class, 3-gun or ipsc, who cares? We have the numbers, we need to stand against the bullies. I'm not advocating violence, that is extremely counter productive and exactly how the anti's see us. Social media can be very powerful. The CCFR is showing great promise and is a well run group that deserves support. There is lots we can do. Take an anti to the range, expose them to what they fear and show them how unwarranted the fears are. Competition guys, invite local media out, get exposure, grow the sports, involve the youth as they are the ones that will pick up the fight.

I'm new to firearms and competition shooting, but the passion takes hold and burns deep. Every mind we change, every positive story we get put in the news is one step closer to gaining back some freedoms. This could be the most important 4 years in history for our sports, don't give it up because the enemy seems to powerful.

Keep shootin guys!

Very well said!!!!

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Brad6510

IMO no government should have any right to take away legally acquired property. It has been proven time and time again, that gun restrictions do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent gun related crime. The real questions we need to be asking are why do they liberals want our guns, who the hell made the RCMP the authority on what we do with our freedoms, but most importantly, what are WE going to do about it?

The anti-gunners pick us off slowly and easily because we are not organized, have no clear consensus and scattered representation. We are our own worst enemy. Time to put aside our differences and band together. Show Canada that we are regular people that enjoy a hobby. Whether its hunting, plinking, F-class, 3-gun or ipsc, who cares? We have the numbers, we need to stand against the bullies. I'm not advocating violence, that is extremely counter productive and exactly how the anti's see us. Social media can be very powerful. The CCFR is showing great promise and is a well run group that deserves support. There is lots we can do. Take an anti to the range, expose them to what they fear and show them how unwarranted the fears are. Competition guys, invite local media out, get exposure, grow the sports, involve the youth as they are the ones that will pick up the fight.

I'm new to firearms and competition shooting, but the passion takes hold and burns deep. Every mind we change, every positive story we get put in the news is one step closer to gaining back some freedoms. This could be the most important 4 years in history for our sports, don't give it up because the enemy seems to powerful.

Keep shootin guys!

Now send this up the food chain to those who will listen

[Dozer31]

Canada has no legislation that says they have to give you anything for your surrendered property.
If we all stand together and protest at every federal building in the country and say no the rcmp don't have enough jails for all of us

[Brad6510]

Originally Posted by Dozer31

Canada has no legislation that says they have to give you anything for your surrendered property.
If we all stand together and protest at every federal building in the country and say no the rcmp don't have enough jails for all of us

The key word is surrendered. They have to convince us all to turn in our semi's. If we can all band together and give a resounding NO, whether you have a semi or not, it will send a damn clear message that gun owners are tired of being pushed around. WE are not the problem.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by Brad6510

The key word is surrendered. They have to convince us all to turn in our semi's. If we can all band together and give a resounding NO, whether you have a semi or not, it will send a damn clear message that gun owners are tired of being pushed around. WE are not the problem.

The problem with your suggestion is that it is a reactive tactic,
which requires us to stand united, which we have frequently demonstrated we are unable to do.

We will always lose In an 'us vs them' strategy or confrontation,
there are more of 'them' than there are of 'us',
and they are better organized politically, financially and strategically.

IMHO, we need a proactive strategy that supports the self interest of non gun-owners.

Our task is to convince non gun-owners they are the prime beneficiaries of a responsible, properly regulated and armed Citizenry,
and that (as history teaches us) their greatest risk comes from the proponents of Citizen disarmament.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[Brad6510]

Originally Posted by qwert

The problem with your suggestion is that it is a reactive tactic,
which requires us to stand united, which we have frequently demonstrated we are unable to do.

We will always lose In an 'us vs them' strategy or confrontation,
there are more of 'them' than there are of 'us',
and they are better organized politically, financially and strategically.

IMHO, we need a proactive strategy that supports the self interest of non gun-owners.

Our task is to convince non gun-owners they are the prime beneficiaries of a responsible, properly regulated and armed Citizenry,
and that (as history teaches us) their greatest risk comes from the proponents of Citizen disarmament.

Good Luck, YMMV.

I agree wholeheartedly that a proactive approach is the key. The CCFR is a well organized group that is doing a great job in lobbying our government, offering support and counsel to them in regards to changes. The more people we can get pushing guns into the positive light the better, however my fear is that, with a majority government whose leader is inept at best, that we may be forced into the corner and reaction would be our only play. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, but I think if we can put aside our differences in pursuit of our common goals, we can actually make an impact. Special interest groups garner a lot of attention, usually pandering off the backs of victims, but they get heard and get results. We need to keep pushing.
High river has all but faded in many peoples minds, other than those affected. Had the RCMP illegally entered homes, seized pets and "lost" them, you can bet your ass the whole country would be up in arms. This is where we need to be focusing, getting the masses to realize that guns are not weapons, they are tools and sporting equipment but most importantly the personal property of law abiding citizens.
We should not have to feel like criminals because we enjoy a sport. But unless everyone can get on board I fear we will be pushed into that corner sooner rather than later

[qwert]

Originally Posted by Brad6510

I agree wholeheartedly that a proactive approach is the key. The CCFR is a well organized group that is doing a great job in lobbying our government, offering support and counsel to them in regards to changes. The more people we can get pushing guns into the positive light the better, however my fear is that, with a majority government whose leader is inept at best, that we may be forced into the corner and reaction would be our only play. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, but I think if we can put aside our differences in pursuit of our common goals, we can actually make an impact. Special interest groups garner a lot of attention, usually pandering off the backs of victims, but they get heard and get results. We need to keep pushing.
High river has all but faded in many peoples minds, other than those affected. Had the RCMP illegally entered homes, seized pets and "lost" them, you can bet your ass the whole country would be up in arms. This is where we need to be focusing, getting the masses to realize that guns are not weapons, they are tools and sporting equipment but most importantly the personal property of law abiding citizens.
We should not have to feel like criminals because we enjoy a sport. But unless everyone can get on board I fear we will be pushed into that corner sooner rather than later

If our only goal and purpose is to shoot feathers, fur, clay or paper,
then the vast majority of non-gun owners will feel no sense of common purpose,
as they consider both us and our activities as distasteful, noisy, dangerous
and more importantly of no personal self interest or benefit.

IMHO, our task is to convince non gun-owners THEY are the prime beneficiaries,
of our activities and our firearm training and ownership.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[fitzy]

We need to get over the US vs us thing and learn to be able to have a conversation like adults without attacking each other before we have any hope at all of tackling an us vs them scenario. How do we expect to teach anybody the value of what we do and stand for if we can't even talk to each other about it.

I'm not convinced that some gun control is a bad thing. I also don't want to lose my guns.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

We need to get over the US vs us thing and learn to be able to have a conversation like adults without attacking each other before we have any hope at all of tackling an us vs them scenario. How do we expect to teach anybody the value of what we do and stand for if we can't even talk to each other about it.

I'm not convinced that some gun control is a bad thing. I also don't want to lose my guns.

It's people like you and raab who are willing to give up some firearms , that are keeping firearms owners divided. You either support the ownership and use of firearms, even if you don't have a need for that type of firearm, or you support the government/RCMP in their plan to ban one type of firearm at a time, until all Canadians are disarmed. It's really that simple. That is the approach that the NRA is taking in the USA, and that is why the NRA has so much influence.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's people like you and raab who are willing to give up some firearms , that are keeping firearms owners divided. You either support the ownership and use of firearms, even if you don't have a need for that type of firearm, or you support the government/RCMP in their plan to ban one type of firearm at a time, until all Canadians are disarmed. It's really that simple. That is the approach that the NRA is taking in the USA, and that is why the NRA has so much influence.

It's too involved for all in or all out. I'm sorry. I personally would never join a group like the NRA. I do agree they get their point across though.
I have personal views on what I would and would not give up. I would not give up one single firearm that I own.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's people like you and raab who are willing to give up some firearms , that are keeping firearms owners divided. You either support the ownership and use of firearms, even if you don't have a need for that type of firearm, or you support the government/RCMP in their plan to ban one type of firearm at a time, until all Canadians are disarmed. It's really that simple. That is the approach that the NRA is taking in the USA, and that is why the NRA has so much influence.

x2
This is what is going to be the death of us, as gunowners.
I talk to often to hunters who don't think we 'need' handguns.
Handgun shooters who think there's no 'need' for AR's...etc.
In reality we don't 'need' any of them...and if you let the handgun owner hang out to dry figuring you'll save your beloved bolt action...you're mistaken.
They'll come after you eventually.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

It's too involved for all in or all out. I'm sorry. I personally would never join a group like the NRA. I do agree they get their point across though.
I have personal views on what I would and would not give up. I would not give up one single firearm that I own.

Sure you don't want to give you YOUR firearms, but you won't stand up to support someone else that has a different type of firearm that the government/RCMP wants to ban. That is exactly what the government /RCMP are planning on.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's people like you and raab who are willing to give up some firearms , that are keeping firearms owners divided. You either support the ownership and use of firearms, even if you don't have a need for that type of firearm, or you support the government/RCMP in their plan to ban one type of firearm at a time, until all Canadians are disarmed. It's really that simple. That is the approach that the NRA is taking in the USA, and that is why the NRA has so much influence.

Just curious in regards to your blanket people like me statement .. how much money have you contributed to groups fighting for gun owners? You'll be interested to know your people like me statement covers a man who has calm conversation with antigun people and have brought people over to our side. Resulting in a friend of mine harvesting deer 2 years in a row. I also contribute actual money not opinions.

So yeah. I think our side probably could use some more people like me.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Sure you don't want to give you YOUR firearms, but you won't stand up to support someone else that has a different type of firearm that the government/RCMP wants to ban. That is exactly what the government /RCMP are planning on.

You're basing this on what?

[qwert]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's people like you and raab who are willing to give up some firearms , that are keeping firearms owners divided. You either support the ownership and use of firearms, even if you don't have a need for that type of firearm, or you support the government/RCMP in their plan to ban one type of firearm at a time, until all Canadians are disarmed. It's really that simple. That is the approach that the NRA is taking in the USA, and that is why the NRA has so much influence.

x2, We may disagree on unimportant things like which is the best reloading press,
but we agree on important things like,

The need for unity and NO COMPROMISE

Good Luck to us all, YMMV.


Canada's National Firearms Association
January 11, 2015 •
CONFRONTATIONAL POLITICS THE RECIPE FOR VICTORY
By EVP Shawn Bevins
Since the days of C-17 and subsequently C-68 the "Canadian Gun Lobby" (which never officially registered as a Lobby with the Commissioner of Lobbying. It is now!) Has been deploying the same status quo techniques. What exactly has been achieved because of those techniques or strategies? The rescinding of the Long Gun Registry. Thats it…nothing more in fact more firearms have been reclassified in the last 10 years that at any other time since the beginning of handgun registration back in 1934.So for some the LGR was a HUGE victory when in fact the only reason it was scrapped in the first place was financial and NOT because the Conservatives liked Gun owners. There are though pro-gun conservatives who try to push change unfortunately.. they are few and far between.
In fact the conservatives saw political gain to be had while remaining true to fiscal conservative policies that would resonate with Toronto based, tax paying, hard working soccer Moms. That is where their loyalty ends…Since the time of coming into force of C-68 NOTHING absolutely nothing has been rescinded, loosened or made easier for law abiding firearms owners. In fact things have become increasingly more and more difficult. Arbitrary CFO's, Rampaging Municipalities, Rabid Environmental Inspectors all on a seemingly endless witch hunt against ranges and shooters. The majority of Clubs, Shooters and Firearm fanciers have been re-engineered into believing that if we are quite, complacent and obedient the Angels of gun grabbing death with pass us by. Thats like playing dead with a grizzly bear. It does not work.
Being the boy who quietly lives in a cubby hole under the stairs fearfully peering out of a crack in the door to see if it is safe to come outside has failed us. Miserably. Recently 15000 innocent Canadians had their private property reclassified from non-restricted to prohibited is the perfect example of this. The bureaucrats and ultimately the Minister of Public Safety himself thought the quiet, obedient and complacent boy in the cubby hole would just quietly compromise as he has done for the last 80 years. Thankfully we received the information of the change in FRT a full 48 hours before it changed. Remember that legally they had NO way of notifying affected owners of these rifles. They were non-restricted and therefore not in the registry. Meaning that 15000 innocent Canadians that purchased these firearms in good faith would now be in ILLEGAL possession of a prohibited "weapon".
To give an idea of the scope of that. You are innocently hunting Coyotes with your Swiss Arms rifle. You are stopped on the side of a field for a license verification by a Police Officer. He sees your firearm. Now your firearm is seized and you now have charges that NET a minimum sentence of 3 years in a federal Penitentiary even though you have never broken a single law in your life.
The NFA and myself deemed this to be an atrocious way to treat Canada's finest citizens. We leaked the info. A tsunami of pressure flowed into Parliament. Creating the back drop of C-42. Prior to that "leaking" and wave of pressure that followed there was very LITTLE political will to do anything for firearms owners. Why is all of this important? Gun organizations including the NFA for many years deployed status quo tactics. What does that achieve? Status quo results meaning Gunnies compromise giving up ground that will never be given back. Since 3 years the NFA has been deploying Confrontational Politics. We give nothing and we demand everything. There is not one gunnie I have spoke to in the last 2 years that does not feel the shift in the Canadian Gun Culture. Things are changing. The NFA is on the forefront of that change.
Historically when do we gunnies get to engage the mass public on firearms policy? After a mass shooting or some other tragedy. Where by the nature of the beast (death) we have already been put in a position of compromise and submission. Don't say the wrong thing because we don't want to insult anyone. The other side (antis) exploit these moments to expose us to another compromise. We compromise out of fear of public opinion. Our memes and postcards are designed to CONTROL the narrative and provoke public discussion on our terms and not on the terms of a tragedy or mass shooting. We want to stimulate the discussions outside of times when we are arguing from a substantially weakened position due to the tragedy controlling the narrative.
This wether you like it or I like it, IS our reality. Now... the NFA controls the narrative on its terms. When we are on our terms we effectively manage and control the narrative and lose nothing in the process. In fact these shock and awe moments provide us with Media opportunities that we would never ever get outside of a mass killing or other tragic event. There we articulate our position and have the opportunity to confront the antis without being handicapped by tragedy.
The NFA has a remarkable and very strong grassroots network of amazing people who are on message 24-7. They are on the media sites, blogs & forums taking the lead in the verbal debates while the NFA provides them those opportunities through shock and awe communication. Remember we have gained NOTHING in 30 years of using the same ol same ol status quo tactics. There are lots of orgs that still use those. The NFA does not. Our organization has nearly doubled in 2 years, changes are coming and the NFA is now known Nation wide. Like us or hate us the NFA and its members are the gun lobby and we will win...
I would be very available to discuss our strategy either in person or over the phone with you. I can be contacted at shawn@nfa.ca or at 819-313-2887

https://www.facebook.com/NFACANADA/p...28363493898416

https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/...mise_approach/

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fitzy

You're basing this on what?

Posts like this.

Lol troll much.
Well one thing is obvious sone of you guys REALLY like your guns. A lot. This looks like they're targeting guns that can be converted to full auto and have pinned clips. Fair enough.

The question is do you really need to have a semi auto to hunt?

The answer is no. Plain and simple.

Why not? Seems a very pertinent question to the thread to me.... or are you for censorship and control?

Here's a question for you we were just talking about at work. If giving up your semi autos to prove that it had no impact on gun crime meant that our government dropped the idea of further gun control would you do it?
We all know taking away semis won't change a thing.

It's too involved for all in or all out. I'm sorry. I personally would never join a group like the NRA. I do agree they get their point across though.
I have personal views on what I would and would not give up. I would not give up one single firearm that I own.

The fact that you ask people to justify why they need a semi auto, that is the approach often used by the anti firearms groups. The fact that you would even suggest trusting the government by willingly giving up semi auto firearms.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by fitzy

We need to get over the US vs us thing and learn to be able to have a conversation like adults without attacking each other before we have any hope at all of tackling an us vs them scenario. How do we expect to teach anybody the value of what we do and stand for if we can't even talk to each other about it.

I'm not convinced that some gun control is a bad thing. I also don't want to lose my guns.

Do we not have controls in place already?

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Posts like this.









The fact that you ask people to justify why they need a semi auto, that is the approach often used by the anti firearms groups. The fact that you would even suggest trusting the government by willingly giving up semi auto firearms.

I was also willing to admit I didn't take into consideration competitve shooting, the bennefits of shooting a semi when shooting a shotgun ect. Conversation does that. It opens you to a different point of view.

The "fact" I suggested giving up your semis is ridiculous, it was a hypothetical coversation I was having with a guy at work ... who happens to be a member of the forum. You just happened to omit that line. No worries though

And I'm sorry asking a question about semi auto rifles in a thread about semi auto rifles... Is that not pertinent? If you want the whole back story to feel good about it here goes,
We were looking at the thread at work and talking about it I made the post.. I still don't think semis are needed... hand guns either for that matter. But I asked what guys needed them for because I legit wanted to know. I enjoy a good discussion and think thats the only way you can change the mine of someone who is against you.

Here's the rub. I don't think there's a place for handguns or rifles built on an assault rifle platform but I fully support your right to own one. I don't think taking your pistol away is going to affect any criminal activity at all and I think it's assinine to expect that it will.