paddyfritz wrote:
Here you go, you can watch the man say it.
https://youtu.be/1mxANbvns6E.
Does he actually say that, if elected, he will move to change the laws to allow people to carry handguns for protection? Or is it the more cautious "I'm in favour of..."? The latter doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of practical politics and actually changing laws. There's a vast difference between the two. The first position would guarantee no chance of election as CCP leader but the second would be sufficient to get some gun enthusiasts salivating, something it appears to have done.
It should be noted by readers that Derek Sloan's official web site avoids any mention of any policy to allow carrying handguns. It's simply not there. There are many examples of politicians saying they are in favour of something but never actually doing anything about it. No person elected leader of the Conservative Party will make carrying handguns an official part of party policy.
To be fair, however, this is exactly the kind of discussion that CAF rules prohibit. See Rule 1.
"Political, religious, ideological posts are not allowed." It's politics and it's political.
Perhaps the nature threads like this one about current gun laws seem a little less clear to some members. Are they political? Discussion of laws passed by the government is invariably political. Sides are drawn in the debate that have clear political lines. A recent thread earlier this past week on suppressor laws in Canada (not about suppressor use) was locked for that very reason and now appears to have been removed. I have no issue with that decision by site moderators.
Murray, you say that "law is not political". I beg to differ. Some laws are such that everyone agrees without question. Murder is wrong and illegal. No one disagrees with that so it's not political. Other laws are more controversial. Marijuana laws, gay rights laws, abortion laws, gun laws -- all of these divide people, often along political lines. Gun laws are very political. That's why they cause such strong views, often with entrenched positions.
To return to the appropriateness of this thread, it begins with this:
gab wrote:
https://youtu.be/_nHoD3DXaXQ
If you are not a member, please consider joining.
Watching this video makes it obvious that there is a clear political aspect to it. Politics are discussed, political parties are criticized for their policies. The OP's own comment encourages readers to join a cause with a political purpose.
There was a time on this forum not so long ago when threads like this one and the nature of the discussion it engenders would have been discouraged and stopped. The recent thread about suppressor law -- not about the use of suppressors -- is clearly a vestige of that time.
Whether CAF members agree or disagree with the politics of the video or whether they agree or disagree with the gun laws of the day is not the issue here -- even though many readers may instinctively believe it is. The issue is that threads and posts of a political nature are against the rules of this forum. This is clearly one such thread.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against changes to gun laws in Canada and I'm not taking a position on the question of carrying handguns for self defence. I'm arguing that CAF rules are being violated in threads like this one. I understand that on a gun forum it may be expected to find threads criticizing any restrictions on gun owners' rights and that some members may be enthusiastic about advancing those rights. But that is not the point. Such discussions are against current CAF rules. They have been discouraged and prohibited in the past. If those rules change, then no one should have issue with a thread such as this.