Threats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Boy oh boy you just can’t stick to the original story. You just have to direct the narrative away from the Globe story which mentioned unacceptable threats. Read it, and tell me , that behaviour is acceptable.

---

Some aren't willing to give up their freedoms and lay down like sheep. Some will do what ever they see fit to fight oppression.

When anti s read that story , they will point out that people who make veiled threats and try to intimidate others with threats,should not be in possession of guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Fake ?How about the threats, were they fake. Seems like she had to address them.The Globe put the story out today and she addressed it? How is that fake? Obviously the threats scared the company enough to bow out of the contact. Who in their right mind thinks that is the right way to fight the bill. It will only fuel the anti s.

---

Define "threats". Were they threats of physical harm or destruction of property or were they withdrawal of business or services? It makes a difference. The former are crimes while the latter is not. Rest well assured that if they were crimes,ever media entity in the country would have every website,front page of every newspaper and the lead story on every TV news telecast not to mention every Liberal politician with their panties in a knot. So far,that's not happening. So,take a deep breath and calm down.

Some believe the fiction the current gov't puts out too... maybe some shouldn't if they blindly believed, it also depends on the nature of their "threat", was it violence, was it real, was it to never use that head hunter again (there are some I won't) or is this just more LIbEral spin and lies?

Was the intimidation legal (like never using them again) or ethically and legally wrong like blocking police investigations... you know maybe some shouldn't be in power too... intimidating Jody W.R. etc. ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ybauld/584677/

and if you disagree...
https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...y-call-with-pm
She remained unapologetic, except for her remorse that she and her colleagues were all “accomplices” in a system that allowed the prime minister to “verbally admonish” MPs who expressed ideas in caucus that ran counter to his own; a system that saw MPs who voted against the government removed from their duties; a system that saw dissenting MPs intimidated

Yep, some using their position and intimidation shouldn't be allowed in their position... and I guess you would have to include the Governor General too.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jul...ions-1.5657397

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Define "threats". Were they threats of physical harm or destruction of property or were they withdrawal of business or services? It makes a difference. The former are crimes while the latter is not. Rest well assured that if they were crimes,ever media entity in the country would have every website,front page of every newspaper and the lead story on every TV news telecast not to mention every Liberal politician with their panties in a knot. So far,that's not happening. So,take a deep breath and calm down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mosquito

Some believe the fiction the current gov't puts out too... maybe some shouldn't if they blindly believed, it also depends on the nature of their "threat", was it violence, was it real, was it to never use that head hunter again (there are some I won't) or is this just more LIbEral spin and lies?

Was the intimidation legal (like never using them again) or ethically and legally wrong like blocking police investigations... you know maybe some shouldn't be in power too... intimidating Jody W.R. etc. ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ybauld/584677/

and if you disagree...
https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...y-call-with-pm
She remained unapologetic, except for her remorse that she and her colleagues were all “accomplices” in a system that allowed the prime minister to “verbally admonish” MPs who expressed ideas in caucus that ran counter to his own; a system that saw MPs who voted against the government removed from their duties; a system that saw dissenting MPs intimidated

Yep, some using their position and intimidation shouldn't be allowed in their position... and I guess you would have to include the Governor General too.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jul...ions-1.5657397

---

The nature of the comments by gun owners to the hired firm are largely irrelevant regardless of how serious they were/weren't. What is important in this is public perception. FM is right in that the actions of few hotheads will only make all of us look worse and further the support for the antis.

The fact that Tracy Wilson had to post something to try and clean this up means there is some basis to the story and serious or not that will be enough for the antis to further damage our cause.

The majority of Canadians support the bans. Whatever was said to cause this firm to cancel their contract whether justified or not will not help it will only get those on the fence to turn against us. We are already in the minority and the smaller that minority gets the smaller our chance of ever coming through this unscathed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

The nature of the comments by gun owners to the hired firm are largely irrelevant regardless of how serious they were/weren't. What is important in this is public perception. FM is right in that the actions of few hotheads will only make all of us look worse and further the support for the antis.

The fact that Tracy Wilson had to post something to try and clean this up means there is some basis to the story and serious or not that will be enough for the antis to further damage our cause.

---

Exactly ... and the LIbErals like Blair won't turn down a chance to colour that perception to their advantage. Like McKenna quoting the National Socialists ... repeat your talking points alot and loud and people will believe... I saw a few sending off letters "threatening" to never use them again when I was having lunch and the whole story was pretty much over by evening it seemed when I got time to look more. Regardless, there will be the anti's and ignorant that will use this "opportunity" to create perceptions, the LIbErals are never one to turn down a "chance" at propaganda and hysteria and fear mongering. When the enemy is willing to lie, the media to spin and half truth something for a desired perception then having a few hot heads spouting is a disadvantage, ANTIFA and other hate groups can lie and burn with impunity but the firearms community needs to count to 1,000 and think of the proper response 3 times (then pick the best one) but will still likely be misquoted or misrepresented as usual in the current environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

The nature of the comments by gun owners to the hired firm are largely irrelevant regardless of how serious they were/weren't. What is important in this is public perception. FM is right in that the actions of few hotheads will only make all of us look worse and further the support for the antis.

The fact that Tracy Wilson had to post something to try and clean this up means there is some basis to the story and serious or not that will be enough for the antis to further damage our cause.

The majority of Canadians support the bans. Whatever was said to cause this firm to cancel their contract whether justified or not will not help it will only get those on the fence to turn against us. We are already in the minority and the smaller that minority gets the smaller our chance of ever coming through this unscathed.

---

What proof exists that gun owners were involved? No one has been charged as of yet that have made public. The article by Ms.Wilson doesn't appear to be an attempt to "clean up" anything,merely an advisory to members. How do we know the "threats" weren't made by internet trolls simply to cause trouble? We don't know anything. Assumptions make fools of all who engage in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

What proof exists that gun owners were involved? No one has been charged as of yet that have made public. The article by Ms.Wilson doesn't appear to be an attempt to "clean up" anything,merely an advisory to members. How do we know the "threats" weren't made by internet trolls simply to cause trouble? We don't know anything. Assumptions make fools of all who engage in it.

---

I am not assuming anything. Clean up/advisory/charges/proof it is all irrelevant. Facts we know are Tracy Wilson called the owner of the firm - she has stated this. If nothing happened she would not have done this. The fact she felt the need to do that and to warn her members not to threaten the firm will be all that Joe Public needs to try and convict us - the Public are the ones who will make assumptions - not me. You are naive if you think the facts and/or proof actually matter. Something happened and the actual details/facts are irrelevant - it will hurt our cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

The majority of Canadians support the bans. Whatever was said to cause this firm to cancel their contract whether justified or not will not help it will only get those on the fence to turn against us. We are already in the minority and the smaller that minority gets the smaller our chance of ever coming through this unscathed.

---

When the majority is already against us based on lies, when becomes time to take measures against oppressive government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

I am not assuming anything. Clean up/advisory/charges/proof it is all irrelevant. Facts we know are Tracy Wilson called the owner of the firm - she has stated this. If nothing happened she would not have done this. The fact she felt the need to do that and to warn her members not to threaten the firm will be all that Joe Public needs to try and convict us. You are naive if you think the facts and/or proof actually matter. Something happened and the actual details/facts are irrelevant - it will hurt our cause.

---

It will only hurt our cause if we allow it to like run and hide. If it turns out it was our own misguided doofusses,we'll deal with it,swiftly and honorably which is a damn sight better than the anti's will do if it turns out it was their supporters.