Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

Campaign 8a is now up.

C-71 is in its committee phase where the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU) review the details of the bill and possibly make changes. Letters need to be short and to the point, which is difficult to do when addressing the specifics of a bill. Campaign 8a focuses on the parts of the bill that deal with prohibiting firearms. Due to the nature of committee, campaign 8a is primarily focused on the technical failings of the relevant sections. Regardless, the goal is to get committee to scrap them. Other parts of the bill will be covered in later campaigns.

http://oneclearvoice.ca/

[stsfisher]

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-71/first-reading

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-firearms-bill-c71-1.4584074

https://globalnews.ca/news/4094224/reality-check-gun-laws-changes/

Dougs Words:

Gun control ineffective

Re: Scott Burbidge’s Jan. 21 letter, “RCMP vulnerabilities exposed.” How does he think the long-gun registry could have helped in Moncton?

The shooter had a licence and so he was in the Canadian Firearms Program database as well as the CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) database. If a link were to have been made between mental health and firearms, it would have happened there, and not with the registry.

Also, look at the recent RCMP shooting in Alberta. The shooter used a handgun, yet handguns continue to be registered and have been since 1934. He also had a lifetime ban on firearms ownership.

After these tragedies, there are always those who argue for “tightening” gun control, but this has proven to have no effect on these types of crimes. Yet these same people never seem to cry for better mental health services, education, poverty reduction, women’s shelters and stronger border control/anti-smuggling efforts. They also seem to be the ones who rail against tough laws and sentencing.

It was not the “sorry state of gun control” that failed in St. Albert and Moncton. It was Canadian society.

Doug McComber, Kingston

I think Canada and the world is doing exactly what I have put into bold. They are asking for everything Doug says they were not doing. So is it not the time to include a Bill that helps facilitate a long term process? One foot in front of the other gets you there!!

As a hunter and gun owner in the past, I have no problem with this Bill and its intentions. Sorry I can not get behind this One Clear Voice petition.

[IronNoggin]

After these tragedies, there are always those who argue for “tightening” gun control, but this has proven to have no effect on these types of crimes. Yet these same people never seem to cry for better mental health services, education, poverty reduction, women’s shelters and stronger border control/anti-smuggling efforts. They also seem to be the ones who rail against tough laws and sentencing.


I think Canada and the world is doing exactly what I have put into bold. They are asking for everything Doug says they were not doing. So is it not the time to include a Bill that helps facilitate a long term process? One foot in front of the other gets you there!!

As a hunter and gun owner in the past, I have no problem with this Bill and its intentions. Sorry I can not get behind this One Clear Voice petition.

A shame, but of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

As for the world stepping up and doing what you put in bold print, this particular bill addresses absolutely NONE of that. Period.
In fact the bill was touted as a "Get Tough On Gangs & Related Gun Violence" strategy, yet completely FAILS to address any of that in any way shape or form. In typical liberal fashion, it instead targets the most vetted members of society we have - the already lawful & compliant legal firearm owners. And then they have the brass to suggest it actually does target gang & criminal activity. SAD! 

I suggest you might want to have a quick review of this thread: http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=41925.0

It rather succinctly addresses the majority of the problems with the bill in question.
Nearly 70,000 people have signed the petition to date.
It would appear that not all share your particular "vision"...

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1608

Cheers,
Nog

[stsfisher]

Thanks for your opinion Nog.
I try not to base my opinions when signing petitions based on fishing forum comments.

I take this quote from your thread link : Not too sure what the changes are but what the hell...   http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=41925.0

I would only be speculating that there are many who have signed with the same thoughts.........but does 70 000  really represent those who have taken the time to truly understand both sides because they can't really be bothered reading the entire Bill in this case, or to do some informative reading on the subject from others than those presenting them from one platform.

I appreciate your enthusiasm behind it, but please do not misrepresent my words as a "vision" they are simply another side in what appears to be a one side crusade on this forum. I represent no-one but myself and my family for the now and the future. And as a law abiding citizen I do not see this bill as an attack on my rights or the rights of my family to pick up a restricted or non restricted gun in the future. What I see this Bill doing is combining agencies to help ensure ALL Canadians have more confidence on how current agencies work with each other in the future.

Sorry still can't get behind this based on my opinion. 

[IronNoggin]

... What I see this Bill doing is combining agencies to help ensure ALL Canadians have more confidence on how current agencies work with each other in the future...

LOL! Certainly. 

Now if you could, please attempt to justify that perception...

Thanks,
Nog

[stsfisher]

LOL! Certainly. 

Now if you could, please attempt to justify that perception...

Thanks,
Nog

 Maybe you didn't read my response, I need to justify my opinions to No-One, especially those on a forum. You have a right to your opinion as well as I.
I have not trashed your opinion but simply added a response to a topic you have brought to our attention. If you don't think my response is warranted so be it.

No doubt your passion guides you in one direction, but not all change should be scene as an attack.

Now if the wife ever decided to change Steak night to veggie platter night I would call that an attack and would have to start my own petition. I can bet it would garner more support than this Bill Petition ever will. 

[IronNoggin]

No doubt your passion guides you in one direction, but not all change should be scene as an attack.

When such changes are disguised under a blatant and intentional misdirection, then I have but little choice but to question both Why, and what is the underlying Agenda. "Attack" might be a little severe, but IMHO it isn't far off from the reality of the situation once you understand it completely.

Your opinion is simply so diametrically opposed to mine, I would have liked a little clarification is all.
No worries, I can live without that...

Now if the wife ever decided to change Steak night to veggie platter night I would call that an attack and would have to start my own petition. I can bet it would garner more support than this Bill Petition ever will. 

Apples to Cadillac's... 

Cheers,
Nog