Printable View
To get a valid measure of public opinion, you need to take a random sample. That's quantitative methods 101.
This report was not based on a random sample. It does not measure, and was never intended to measure, public opinion. The goal of the exercise was to determine if there was any consensus re what action might be taken and to identify common themes.
I discussed this last fall with someone from Bill Blair's staff, but what the heck would I know?
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Gilroy is a SKS with a wood stock more powerful than a SKS with the wood stock?
A Military look does not make a firearm more powerful.
Yet 99.99 % of anti gun people believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Don't let the facts get in the way, of whatever hate you have for a particular political party. :thumbup:
is a SKS with a military stock more powerful than a SKS with the wood stock? Yes or No. Very simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Boys, we are heading into a General election shortly. This government’s track record is corruption, lies and incompetence. They can’t run on that. They need to change the channel and gun control is a very effective wedge issue. What they have done about gun control in the past means nothing. Zero. Wether there is time to legislate changes doesn’t matter. They can bring it up to excite the uninformed about how our present laws work and rally them to support banning those “bad” black guns and handguns. The fact that licensed law abiding people own and use these means nothing during an election campaign. Bring up past tragedies and show yourself as the party to stop them and you’re in. Liberals campaign better than any other party. They can lie all day long with tears or grins and it works. I have no doubt they will bring up gun bans even if they have no intention of following through on it. How many promises have they broken so far? People will still vote for them. You don’t need to be intelligent or informed to vote. All you need is a voter card.
Explain please?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Just an email on the topic... seems some Libs were almost desperate (or actually were) for bans.
Team CSSA E-News | April 11, 2019
COMMENTARY
Canadian Parliament Peace tower in Ottawa_ with a plane over the blue sky and a white smoke trail
On Monday, April 8th, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (SECD) reviewed Bill C-71 clause by clause.
Senator Marilou McPhedran, who worked with the Coalition for Gun Control while serving on the government’s Firearms Advisory Committee, is desperate to ram a handgun ban down our throats before the federal election because she fears she will not get the chance afterward.
Senator Don Plett led the charge against the more restrictive aspects of Bill C-71 and successfully added amendments to:
leave the current 5-year background check in place instead of expanding them to an applicant’s entire life;
repeal the provision requiring a separate Authorization to Transport to border crossings and gunsmiths;
repeal the provision stopping the Minister from fixing RCMP classification errors (of which there have been many).
McPhedran first proposed amending Bill C-71 to include a handgun ban on April 3, 2019. Minister Bill Blair’s refusal to tell her what she wanted to hear drew condescending fire from her during Blair’s testimony before the committee.
Asked McPhedran: “Given that the window for Parliamentary action on your yet-to-be-released report is getting smaller every day. Why not add handguns to the definition of prohibited firearms that’s in Bill C-71? Why not take that action now?”
“I know there are people who are saying just do it quickly,” Minister Blair replied. “Frankly, I think we should do it right.”
Unable to get her way with Minister Blair, Senator McPhedran tweeted her intention to amend Bill C-71.
“Today, I will move at #SECD's clause-by-clause on Bill #C71 an amendment to add handguns to the ‘prohibited firearm’ list in the Criminal Code. Read full news release here: http://bit.ly/2uTvRIL.”
After presenting both her amendment and a grandstanding speech in support of it, senators took turns shooting it down.
Senator Plett: “We have a minister who tells us he is dealing with it. [a handgun ban] I don’t like the fact that he’s dealing with it but I accept the fact that he’s in government. He got elected to represent and he got appointed to be the Minister… But we are stepping on territory that is not our business to step on.”
Senator Pratte: “I think this amendment is premature because there is this consultation process that is nearly completed now. And there remains the question of what happens to the owners of these firearms. Usually when firearms are prohibited, they’re usually grandfathered. It’s not indicated here. So, while I appreciate the intention and I’m very sympathetic to it, I’ll probably abstain on my vote.”
Senator Gold: “Even though time is running out in this Parliament, I do think it’s appropriate to allow the consultation to be completed, because it’s a complicated issue, so for that reason I think I would abstain as well.”
Senator Boisvenu: “I share the opinion set forth by my collogue across the way. It’s premature.”
Why she issued her press release hours before SECD was scheduled to meet remains a mystery. Was she virtue signalling to her former colleagues at Coalition for Gun Control? Was it an attempt to pressure her fellow “independent” senators into supporting her? Whatever her reasons, her grandstanding at committee did not yield her intended results.
She garnered only a single vote in favour of her amendment, in addition to her own.
The final vote count:
Yes: 2
No: 6
Abstentions: 3
Then came an interesting announcement from the Speaker of the Senate.
“Please note that due to unforeseen circumstances, Minister Goodale will not be attending Question Period in the Senate this afternoon.”
This left some wondering if Senator McPhedran’s failed handgun ban amendment was the cause of Minister Goodale’s sudden “unforeseen circumstances.”
How each Senator voted:
Senator Boisvenu: No
Senator Gold: Abstain
Senator Griffin: No
Senator Jaffer: Yes
Senator McIntyre: Abstain
Senator McPhedran: Yes
Senator Oh: No
Senator Plett: No
Senator Pratte: Abstain
Senator Richards: No
Senator Wells: No
On behalf of our members and firearm owners across the nation, the CSSA is grateful for Senator Plett’s continued opposition to Bill C-71, and his steadfast defence of Canada’s law-abiding community, our culture of safety and the long, proud history of the shooting sports.
One unelected phyco senator does not a party make. Bet I could find a crazy con senator whom wants to ban same sex marriage and abortions, does that mean the conservative party wants to ban same sex marriage and abortions?
Unless Gilroy has edited post #6, I don’t believe it stated his support for a ban ? Not sure what some have read in that post to get so upset over.
Unfortunately, he has a point. If 50 people are gunned down in Canada with a black rifle, the uninformed masses will demand changes. Have we forgotten that the Firearms Act of 1995 was partially in response to the Montreal shooting of 1989 Ecole Polytechnicque ? Our gun lobby is in no way strong enough to stop it if it happens.
LOL. That worked well for the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals in Ontario,didn't it? Unless Trudeau resigns soon,the federal Liberals are staring at the same thing,especially,now that the electorate's attention is solidly riveted on gun control,women's rights from the JWR/Philpot debacle and SNC-Lavelin corruption. They've dug a deep hole that they may not be able to climb out from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy