So up here in Canada...

T

The Canuck

New member
We are in the middle of a dog fight with the gun control advocates over a complete ban of semi-automatic firearms. Of course we know where that will lead should they succeed, don't we? Now, as you all have spent a lot of time under the gun (so to speak) and have managed to gain CCW laws in most of the states over time, are there any methods or strategies that you have used that you beleive might work up here in Canada to aid us in our struggle? We are literally with our backs to the wall up here and your Northern friends could really use your help.

Regards,

The Canuck.
 
Write lots of e-mails to your reps. Vote.

Get labor unions to call a strike at all the breweries untill CCW and full-auto weapons permits are required for all citizens.

Get angry and make your voices heard, you guys are too laid back.
 
Have patience, be stong, be calm and reasonable, be lOUD:)

O and raise alot of money.

Be sure to shoot down arguments about recent events. People never seem to remmember history so think really hard about recent events. Dont be scard when someone speakes of the college shooting recently, have a good idea of what to say before hand.
 
Be sure that *every single Canadian with a gun* knows that the gun-grabbers are after his guns. He may be complacent right now, because he doesn't own any semi-autos and doesn't much care about them. Make sure he knows that once the semi-autos are gone, his scoped deer rifle will become a "high-powered sniper weapon". His duck hunting shotgun can have its barrel sawed off to become "the weapon of choice" for drug dealers and gang-bangers.

As a Californian, it makes me weep to think of all the hunters I personally knew who stood by and watched as our legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that was stricter than our federal one ever was. (And it's *still* here!)

Tim
 
Do you guys have an equivelant to out 2nd Amendment? Like everyone here has said, get loud and spread the word that guns arent bad. And money definately helps.
 
Thank you one and all. Please keep the brainstorm going!

We have been getting very loud, immediately targetting any articles or letters that are false or rely more on emotion than logic.

Whenever an anti-gun advocate gets on the radio or TV we have been pushing our spokespersons onto the same programs.

We have been sending the message using logic and reason, as well as a massive letter writing campaign to our politicians to get our view out there.

As for money, we are donating and collecting as much as we can. But we have three major firearms advocacy groups and the cash and voice is divided.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment rights, hell we don't even have property rights! But our current government is trying to push for that in our Charter reform.

*the following are my opinions and thoughts, not fact, nor are they to be taken as such*
We have begun to go on the offensive, but I think the anti-gun groups may be pulling some dirty tricks, such as false testimonials from "gun owners" and prominent members of "society". The worst one for me has been what I think is a person impersonating a former Canadian Infantry Officer and firearms owner.
 
reils49,
I don't think anybody has an equivalent of our 2nd Amendment. :(

It's a large part of the problem.


-azurefly
 
See if the NRA will franchise an operation for our good buds to the north. The NRA has the politics pretty we dialed in.

Get rabid about finding a candidate to carry your flag. Until you get positive coverage in the media you will go nowhere.
 
Canuck,
The closest thing you have to the 2nd Amendment is in your Constitution Act of 1982 where it says:

Legal Rights

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Click to expand...

This is a place to start by maybe including it in any conversation you have with people because a simple and correct argument would be that an attack by a BG is an attempt to deprive you of ALL items in that paragraph, and it states specifically that you have the RIGHT to those things. Note that the wording is "everyONE" which directly references the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of citizens, not a "collective" societal right. That's important.
Therefore, it follows quite logically that EACH PERSON is granted the RIGHT to PRESERVE those things for themself, and the only way to do that is by superior force available to you at a moment's notice.

Since the Liberal Left has established how easy it is to "tweak" the Constitution and use causal arguments to suggest that something exists in the Constitution that isn't ALL there, then this isn't a stretch at all for your side to use it as an argument for allowing guns (the best superior and personal weapon) in society at large, but with some practical means of verifying that the person buying them is not a felon such as we do here in the States (NICS check).

The simple logic argument is that:
1. EVERYONE has the RIGHTS ascribed to them in that paragraph. It says so right there in the Constitution.
2. Criminals easily take away those RIGHTS from individuals on a daily basis.
3. Police can NOT protect those RIGHTS of citizens.
4. Therefore, CITIZENS must protect their OWN rights as anotated in the CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.
5. It is not possible for people who are weaker than the lawless, or smaller, or older, or in any way physically inferior, to protect themselves without a defensive weapon.
6. Since many criminals have guns (illegally... how'd THAT happen, hmmm?), it stands to reason that citizens require a LEGAL means to defend themselves that would at least put them on even ground with an attacker.
8. Therefore, guns MUST be legalized in a civilized society in order to secure the rights of individuals as written in the Constitution of Canada, 1982.
9. It then follows that because the government of Canada prevents the citizens of Canada from protecting and exercising their rights as noted in the Constitution of Canada, 1982 by outlawing the most practical (and really, the only practical) means of defending the rights ascribed to them in the Constitution of Canada, then the government of Canada is directly violating the Constitution of Canada, 1982.

You'll get the argument that "that's what police are for", but it's easy to point out that police are NEVER there at the exact moment that a citizen needs defensive assistance. Police only arrive in time to draw that pretty chalk line around the body of the victim.

You're not going to change the minds of the Liberal Left in Canada, but you CAN give the reasonable majority of Canadians something to think about. And don't forget to quote and retell as many horrific crimes and instances of brutal attacks by criminals as you can find, and always point out that if the victim had been armed, then the outcome would have been better. Plus, a successful attack by a BG virtually ASSURES that the BG will continue to attack other victims and an armed citizen by virtue of successfully defending him/her self would prevent any future crimes upon other innocent people by that BG.
Also, when someone brings up any of the school shootings and those kind of things, point out that if there had been one or more LEGAL CCW carriers on the scene, then all or most of the carnage of that event could have been avoided.
And continously point out that no matter what laws are made, they only keep guns out of the good people of Canada while doing nothing to disarm criminals. Also continously point out the many laws on your books that are NOT successfully enforced which illustrates the idiocy and incompetence of the government with regard to protecting the citizens of Canada.

The arguments I put forth here don't address the "semi automatic" issue you are referring to, but I feel it's better to argue the most basic premise of guns and their legal presence in society. Make some progress with this kind of argument and you won't be doomed to argue the little bitty stuff one step at a time until the true agenda of the Left in your country is reached, i.e., the total ban on guns of all types in the entire country.

My .02.... now pay up. ;)

Carter
 
CDH said:
My .02.... now pay up.
Click to expand...

:D

Tell you what. If I come across you someday. I'll buy you a beer.

That's some good stuff. I will bring the Charter thing up (again!) with my peers and see where it goes.

Thanks!
 
To our esteemed Canadian neighbors,

Go ahead and repeat the mistakes of England and Australia. Both have passed extreme gun control laws and both countries have suffered for it. England has seen the number of firearms incidents skyrocket since the ban and British subjects now complain that they are seen as lawbreakers for defending themselves in their own homes. Meanwhile Australia saw armed robberies jump some 40% after their restrictive firearms act took force.

Just about two years after banning guns, England proposed to elminate the right to trial by jury in some "minor" offences. What qualifies as a "minor" offence? Early on, it was any crime with a sentence of less than 1 year, however some argued to expand that to anything under 3 years. Is it a coincidence that the removal of one right might be followed by the elimination of another?

Canadians have had their first warning that the promises of "gun control" are built upon false logic, distortions of the truth and outright lies. The gun registration scheme -- touted as an aide to solving crimes -- has soared from a several million C$ program to almost a billion C$. Yet it has solved no crimes and audits show glaring inaccuracies in the database. Now the people who brought you that boondoggle want the Canadian taxpayer to fund programs to ban semi-automatics too.

Let's engage in some logical thinking for a moment. Supposing semi-automatic firearms are banned, what will happen in the following years? Of course revolvers, bolt-action, pump-action and even "western-style" lever guns will start showing up in crime statistics. If the ban works, these will then become the "weapon of choice" for criminals. Revolvers do not leave behind incriminating empty cartridges. Rifles and shotguns are considerably more lethal than handguns. And projectiles from shotguns cannot be matched to a particular gun like handguns or rifles. The end result will be more fatalities and less evidence with which to convict the criminal. No doubt there will also be calls to ban these firearms too.

When confronted by the threat of violence, studies in the United States have shown what is the safest course of action. That course of action is not to submit without resistance and it is not to resist with non-lethal force such as pepper spray or a stun gun. Fewer people are injured when they use a firearm to resist a criminal than resistance by any other means. Since criminals often act in pairs or small groups, for most people, a semi-automatic pistol with a large capacity magazine allows them to deal with the threat of multiple attackers.

It is also important to note that police respond to man with a gun calls with multiple units using body armor, high-capacity semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, rifles, radio-coordinated tactics and helicopters equipped with thermal-imaging night-vision equipment and/or night-sun spotlights. Yet police administrators along with anti-gun advocates seem to think you, the average Canadian, may be engaging in "overkill" by acting alone, in the dark wearing your pajamas, using an eight-shot semi-automatic pistol.

The only two groups who benefit from an unarmed populace are criminals -- and governments.
 
Hey all,

I haven't forgotten you. I am just getting to this post again to see what knowledge has been added since last time I was here.

Thanks for the info and encouraging posts folks!
 
The charter also states:

"26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada."

The Canadian constitution is comprised of the Charter and the BNA which refers to the English Bill of Rights in the Preamble, when it states "One Dominion ... with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom."

Now, the British Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights of 1689, which states :

"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

Therefore, it may be argued that the right to keep arms for personal defence is still guaranteed in Canada by the charter and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Remember, the charter is only part of the constitution and the principles of English common law still apply in Canada.

Obviously, the restriction of granting this right only to protestants, would be struck down by the section of the charter protecting freedom of religion.

I suggest that you join the National Firearms Association as they are fighting for our rights. There are also provincial associations they can refer you to.

NFA
 
"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

This statement is absurd on its face. Its a law that says subjects (subjects!) may have arms except for the arms that the law does not allow. There is nothing here that prohibits the government from disallowing any or all arms.

Tim
 
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law"

Throughout the English Bill Of Rights, the phrase "allowed by law" is an affirmation, not a constraint.

Also, the reference to religion is because the former king had allowed catholics but denied protestants the right to arms. So this new BOR was to ensure equality between the religions.


see: RKBA

for a full explanation.
 
"Throughout the English Bill Of Rights, the phrase "allowed by law" is an affirmation, not a constraint."

Thanks for the clarification, 4RH. On more careful reading, I can see that you are correct--it makes perfect sense.

Tim
 
While the clarification just provided appears to mean that "as allowed by law" is offered as saying, "you know, which everyone knows is allowed by our laws," it also seems to be opened up to the possibility that the "law" that allows it could at some point be repealed.

I don't like the weird wishiwashiness of that phrase. :cool:


-azurefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top