Canadian Airgun Forum

Thing is. These posts don't happen enough to be like WOAH we need to ban. The government is trying to Ban firearms via OIC. Which is a huge punch in face to Canadians, be it gun owners or not. More money will be wasted in buy back, that honestly you won't get close to 1/4 what you paid for. Like I told my wife, you are going to pay out of your tax money to buy back my guns.

A lot of freedom has been taken away, and a lot of gun owners, are also airgun owners. The "crap" will roll down.

We can sit easily and be like hey Johnny how that weather? oh its great Fred. I would go shooting but hey government banned my guns. SHHHHHH I don't want to hear it.

It's a hot topic, like you cannot go a day without hearing something about Covid. Sure I'm sick of hearing about it, but you cannot go around sticking fingers in ears saying, I don't want to talk about it.

Honestly I feel sometimes airgunners are birds with their head in the sand. Be since it doesn't apply to them, they either don't have firearm license, or shoot PB that they don't care. It's like hunters that go after sport shooters. They cannot hunt with Handguns, so they feel like its okay to ban pistols. I can easily say, there not need to go hunting and since you buy 80% of your meat at a store, so I feel there no need to hunt. But I don't.

This is a fight that we are all into. Its not like this 1 post is running CAF.

HECK I see people breaking the law on this forum, and some people encouraging it because they are supporting the sport.
People modifying airguns without proper licenses, unsafe shooting, shooting in places with by laws in place. How about we ban all the discussion of modification to airguns?

So yes these posts kinda do have a place here, because we need to educate everybody.


FYI I opened carried.

So Government can trust me to carry to protect the country, but I need a license for a airgun, and cannot carry for protect from bears/coyotes etc while walking my dog in rural NS.

_________________
I'm merely an Airgun plinker. I don't shoot 10m, FT or partake in Airgun competitions.

This post and the previous one are exactly the kind of posts that CAF rules prohibit.

Just because some posters believe in a point of view -- be it on the appropriateness of a recent gun law, on whether Canadians need to carry handguns for personal protection, or anything else related to the laws of the land -- doesn't mean that CAF is the venue to air that view. This is not CGN, where almost anything goes. If you want to bash the government or give it your political support, you should join a political party, write an op-ed piece, write your MP, join a protest, or sing on your roof top -- whatever way seems best and legal. The Canadian Airgun Forum should not be used as a forum for political discussion or persuasion or complaint.

Prior to 9-11, I'd spend lots of time in Vermont. I always thought it was pretty funny that a foreign government would trust me to open carry in public... but not my gov.

My father got carry is 30 something states. Yet disarmed up here. Silly things are like that.

Id like to see ACT opened up more for rural people. Will I think it will happen? Nope. Way the noose is tightening, It won't be long before all guns are banned. We will be left with Red Ryders, till someone shoots their eye out and then ban those.

Heck a dog attack my way, and within days. They are already talking about banning the breed. If a government can act that quick on something useless as that. Wonder what actual good they could do?

_________________
I'm merely an Airgun plinker. I don't shoot 10m, FT or partake in Airgun competitions.

This forum has rules, very old rules. Posts of a political nature are not permitted. This is an airgun forum with a tradition of avoiding political debate, especially when it relates to firearms. This entire thread is inappropriate on CAF.

Anyone wants to bellyache and whine about not being able to carry a handgun in Canada should do it elsewhere. Anyone who feels diminished for not being able to carry a concealed weapon in Canada should complain elsewhere.

No major Canadian political party -- Conservative, Liberal, or NDP -- has ever taken a position that Canadians should be allowed to carry a handgun for self defence and that won't change. Few Canadians want this. An airgun forum is not the place to gripe about not being able to carry a weapon in public. It does less for manliness than carrying a gun -- and that does nothing.

Derek Sloan, who is running for the leadership of the conservative party has publicly stated he wants to allow gun owners to carry handguns for the purpose of defense, and to establish castle doctrine. See the CCFR for a copy of the video.

Since comments in this thread bother you so much, maybe you should stop reading them.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.

OK guys,

Please, let's keep it civil and in the general positive spirit of our beloved CAF.

Cheers!

Avianmanor

_________________
*Air Arms S510 Extra*Artemis M11*CZ 200S*Benjamin Marauder*Brocock Concept*Cometa Orion*Daystate Huntsman*FX Dreamline*FX Streamline*Hatsan BT65*Kral Puncher*QB78D 875 FPS*Weihrauch HW100S*Artemis PP700S*Artemis M11/2*Diana Chaser*FX Radar*Snowpeak CP1-M*

If Derek Sloan actually committed himself to the position that Canadians should be allowed to carry handguns for defence, he wouldn't be elected -- not to the leadership of the Conservative Party, nor to the leadership of the country. If he's hinted that he'd fight for the right to carry handguns it's nothing more than a sop to the very small minority to whom that appeals. Few Canadians would vote to someone with that position. Derek Sloan understands that, which explains why his web site makes no mention whatsoever to a policy to allow carrying handguns in public. It's not an official position and it won't be. See https://www.dereksloan.ca/

I'm not bothered by silly ideas. If I'm bothered by threads like this it's because it goes against the time-honoured traditions of this forum to stay away from political debate. This is not the place for politics or advocacy of changing long-established laws and traditions of this country. There are more appropriate places to call for the right to carry handguns in public in Canada. This isn't it.

Here you go, you can watch the man say it. https://youtu.be/1mxANbvns6E.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.

I must say, Glenn, this would be the first subject on which I would have to disagree with you. There is a major difference between "talking politics" and discussing matters of law related to the issues relevant to this forum. The law is not political; it is the law, written for us and enforced by OUR government - underscore: OUR government. Fortunately, for the time being, at least, we do have the right to speak against acts of our government, and so we should: with our voices and with our votes. The last place the opinion of gun owners should be censored is in a firearm-related forum.

Since your argument seems to be focused on the traditions and principles of CAF, first off, I will say, "Respect." I don't think there's an active member out there who doesn't share those feelings, yours truly included. But, as we firearm enthusiasts know so well, the rules are what they are by how they are interpreted by those who enforce them. As a short-term forum "insider," I practiced a liberal philosophy (I know that will confuse some - notice no cap "L") similar to the one you are witnessing now in the moderating of this thread. We understood the rule's intent when it was written, and we understood how the environment has changed since it was written -- similar to the old rule of no discussion of modifying air guns (I was banned on that one in an earlier life and account name, arguing that most modifications are not illegal). Well, we all know how that rule has been adjusted in its interpretation over the last ten years. So, too, with the "politics" rule, where we are now in a time when firearm rights are being threatened by new legislation (in this case an OIC) (which are laws, as referenced above), the interpretation has adjusted, thanks to the fact that the administrator and moderators recognize and share in the significance of the changing times and their implications.

Notwithstanding that fact, we are exactly at the point where a thread like this can go gonzo.

For the last couple of pages the discussion about the OIC has been opinion-focused (OK) but very controlled (making it good). At the end of the second page, you, Glenn, raised your concerns about the appropriateness of this post. Perfectly appropriate post in itself. But, you took the bait when someone mentioned in the transaction that Sloan advocated privilege to carry, and responded with your opinion that such a formal move would, yes, to paraphrase, be political suicide. To some, that may have called for a "political" response, and as a matter of fact, you got one.

Discussing laws relative to the forum's mission is definitely possible, but there's that fine line, and that's what mods are looking for these days: Crossing that line. If the thread continues in the current line of discussion, it'll be dead before the end of the third page. If calm discussion prevails, and political references are left out of it, it could be interesting for several more pages.

$0.00

I "CARRIED" as a member of the Federal Police force in B.C. and I "CARRIED" as a Correctional Officer here in B.C. I am the same man now as I was then, although I am now a retired peace officer. That changed everything.
I am plagued by the same laws as the rest of you - we are all equally regular citizens in the eyes of the law. I very much doubt we will ever see gun rights restored in Canada - those were removed back around WW1 or shortly afterwards, seems to me. Our rights have gone downhill every since, no matter who was in power.
What's the answer?
I don't know, other than waiting to hear about the court cases against this newest legislation. NFA thinks they will win theirs.
I don't know about the other 2.

_________________
Best Wishes
Daryl

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:


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.

You are the only person expressing outrage over this thread. Again I would say, if you don't like the content, don't read it.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.

Penage Guy, the rules are violated alot on CAF, even when it comes to airgun rules. But let slide because they are supporting the hobby.

But Section 7 of the Charter of rights and freedom. Technically supports it. Life, Liberty and security of the person. Hes political, nobody ever really fought the government against them. But as much as I wish, It won't happen, because too many parties are against it. Too many don't care that the government is violating our charter of rights. So I'm happy people are suing the Government.

_________________
I'm merely an Airgun plinker. I don't shoot 10m, FT or partake in Airgun competitions.

You are correct that these post's are breaking forum rule but i have been looking the other way for now as long as they stay civil ..

_________________
Moderator