waldo Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 Harper Conservative Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, posing while wearing a Canadian National Firearms Association (CNFA) t-shirt that bears the image of a maple leaf attached to a military-style assault rifle... the words "No Compromise" appear under the image. Justice Minister appropriate? Perhaps some of the MLW 'gun enthusiasts" can shed some light on what the CNFA's use of the phrase "No Compromise" actually means - specifically. The CNFA website doesn't appear to explain the use/intent of the "No Compromise" phrasing. Equally, the office of Harper Conservative Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, does not provide comment in that regard... choosing instead to frame MacKay's wearing of the t-shirt as simply... "a homage to the Canadian Armed Forces". Well... way to support the troops... while clearly distancing himself/Harper Conservatives from the CNFA, the shirt image/phrase itself and the CNFA representative appearing next to him in the photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 It's not a homage to Canadian forces, but a veteran from Afghanistan asked him to wear it for a picture. Much ado about nothing. As usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 MacKay has become notorious for making some really dumb moves. For that reason, the number of handlers that have been assigned to him have been increased. It looks like even that number is not enough to protect him from himself and that number has to be increased. Look for a concerted effort by the PMO to spin this and get it off the front page. Also look for some clever stick handling and tap dancing by Peter to somehow excuse himself from this dumb move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 The NFA’s “No Compromise” campaign was born out of the reclassifications of the Swiss Arms and CZ 858 rifles, coupled with the ongoing inquiry into the famed “High River Gun-Grab”……..it has since morphed into the theme for the scrapping of the current Firearms Act, a cause championed by the NFA. The distancing is only natural, the NFA wasn’t invited to the announcement of the Common Sense Firearms Act, with the current Government favouring the more moderate (and effective) gun advocacy group, the CSSA…….which is at odds with the NFA over their differing approaches to firearms legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 MacKay has become notorious for making some really dumb moves. For that reason, the number of handlers that have been assigned to him have been increased. It looks like even that number is not enough to protect him from himself and that number has to be increased. Look for a concerted effort by the PMO to spin this and get it off the front page. Also look for some clever stick handling and tap dancing by Peter to somehow excuse himself from this dumb move. I expect the opposite........Gun owners are a large voting block and source of financial contributions to the CPC, which faced a prolonged pause in donations after the reclassifications of several firearms earlier this year…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 I expect the opposite........Gun owners are a large voting block and source of financial contributions to the CPC, which faced a prolonged pause in donations after the reclassifications of several firearms earlier this year…….. Thank you for you opinion. I am looking forward to the response from the Conservatives and others to see which one of us was correct in this particular case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 27, 2014 Report Share Posted August 27, 2014 Thank you for you opinion. I am looking forward to the response from the Conservatives and others to see which one of us was correct in this particular case. The tabling of the Common Sense Firearms Act (with ongoing amendments) this Fall, coupled with several Private Member’s Bills, should give you some sort of indication in the months ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yet another Mackay "misfire" pardon the pun. What portfolio will they send him off to this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 The tabling of the Common Sense Firearms Act (with ongoing amendments) this Fall, coupled with several Private Member’s Bills, should give you some sort of indication in the months ahead. The point that I was trying to make is that this was a mistake by Peter and we will SOON see a lot of tap dancing and dodging by the Harper government to try to extricate Peters foot out of his mouth but once more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 The point that I was trying to make is that this was a mistake by Peter and we will SOON see a lot of tap dancing and dodging by the Harper government to try to extricate Peters foot out of his mouth but once more. Your assumption is skewed though, firearms owners are a key part of the Tory base, and it can be suggested, those in favour of draconian gun control laws probably wouldn’t be voting Conservative next year anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 Perhaps Harper is hedging his bet against the opposition to his "tough on crime" bill by making it easy for everybody to get a gun so there is an increase in crimes from which he can fill up those new prison cells and then say see I told ya we needed this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 Thought I’d add a group email I received the other day from the CSSA on the same topic as the NFA's "No Compromise" meme, as a contrast between the two groups: CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION / CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONTEAM CSSA E-NEWS - August 26, 2014 ** Please share this E-news with your friends **COMMENTARY: GUN CLASSIFICATION NEEDS SURGERY, NOT MERE BAND-AID FIXThe Harper government appears earnest in helping gun owners slay the classification dragon, but it needs to take the beast down hammer and tongs with legislation.The recent Swiss Arms and CZ-858 debacle dished up by the RCMP revealed the government's distaste for being dictated to by meddling civil servants. That's a good thing. With that said, segments of the general public (and even some gun owners) seem to believe that certain guns are inherently more evil than others and should be legislated accordingly. And so, the problem remains that the proposed fixes for classifying guns according to varying degrees of “dangerousness” plays to the foolish premise that some guns are good and some guns are bad. Gun owners have difficulty trying to find some consensus on this issue and opinions vary all over the map. Many believe that classifications need to exist if only to placate those who think the system keeps them safe. And as much as we try to educate them, we all know how some folks take to being lectured on a subject they think they understand. We also need to recognize that the Harper government has committed to eating this elephant one bite at a time. Like it or not, that is a political reality, and over the last several years we have seen several steps forward. And there will be more.So with all that in mind, let's try to envision some classification options that benefit firearms owners yet provide an adequate sense of security to the general public. Let's look at four possible options:1.Create a new section within Section 12 of the Firearms Act known as section 12(9.) It would create a special category for firearms that the RCMP deems prohibited. But, people can continue to own, possess and use the firearms listed in this category. But, this option could cause public unrest if firearms that are considered prohibited can continue to be used and possessed by their owners. The government could be accused of abdicating control over prohibited firearms by letting the general public use them. Additionally, the rules to Authorizations to Transport (ATT) would have to be changed to permit these Section 12(9) firearms to be taken to a shooting range. Without this ATT change, Section 12(9) firearms would be legal to possess, but owners couldn't use them. Even if all these changes were made, gun owners still couldn't shoot them anywhere but on a Section 29 shooting range. So, this is certainly not the best option.2.Declare that the firearms involved are indeed prohibited 12(3) firearms and create a provision in Section 12 to permit new firearms to be added to the 12(3) category. Additional changes would have to be made to Section 12 to permit the owners of these firearms to be grandfathered into section 12(3.) Unfortunately, this options shares the same questionable optics as the previous option. The Authorizations to Transport rules would still need amending to permit taking section 12(3) firearms to a shooting range. Without this amendment, 12(3) firearms would be permitted to own, but owners couldn't use them. If all these changes were made, the firearms would still not be able to be used anywhere but on a Section 29 shooting range. Still not the best option.3.Add a simple sentence to the Firearms Act that enables a Minister to declare any firearm to be non-restricted. This would add to the Minister's powers under Order-in-Council because the ability to restrict or prohibit firearms is already within the Minister's purview. Certainly, this is an easy fix for the CZ/Swiss Arms but it still leaves the gigantic classification mess unaddressed. And without repeal of the restrict/prohibit powers, any positive change could be easily undone by a future government.4.A plain language rewrite of Section 12 of the Firearms Act could retain the prohibited, restricted and non-restricted categories, but Section 84(1) of the Criminal Code firearms definitions would be amended to accomplish two goals. First, it would reverse the prohibition of the CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles as per the Minister's stated intention. Second, it would change Canada's classification system into a simple and easy format for both firearms owners and police officers to understand. •The CSSA feels that rewriting Section 12 is the best of the four solutions for a number of reasons. The problem of overnight RCMP classifications that have plagued the Harper government would be eliminated. •These changes would also prevent the arbitrary reclassification of firearms into restricted/prohibited categories after Canadians have legally purchased them. It solves the second problem by simplifying the classification system so firearms owners, police officers and other public officials can finally understand them. •The first category, covered under Section 12, is the "prohibited firearm." Our proposal defines a prohibited firearm as (a) an automatic firearm,( a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted, is less than 660 mm in length,•It defines a “restricted firearm” as(a) a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm,( a handgun© a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise.•It defines a "non-restricted firearm” as a firearm that is not a prohibited or restricted firearm. This is far easier to understand than the confusing legalese used now. It is an essential part of the political process to offer solutions, not just criticism. It seems very likely that most Canadians will be satisfied with a restructured classification system that retains the terms they recognize, but is fair to responsible, trustworthy gun owners. Firearms owners could take some satisfaction in knowing that one of the biggest shortcomings in the Firearms Act will finally be addressed. The CSSA feels this goal is achievable but we need your help. Write or call your MP and discuss these positive changes. Emphasize how this is good for all parties and help them understand how this will not compromise public safety one iota. It is important to act quickly on this, Minister Blaney's promised bill is just around the corner. As I said before, the CSSA is the group that has the ear of the CPC, and along with party membership, is where the Conservatives Firearms Policy derives from…… * A copy of the letter should be posted in the next couple of days here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 It's not a homage to Canadian forces, but a veteran from Afghanistan asked him to wear it for a picture. Much ado about nothing. As usual. in regards his wearing the CNFA's "Canadian Flag-Assault Rifle --- No Compromise" t-shirt, Harper Conservative Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, said: "Having spent a great deal of time with members of the Canadian Forces, I have never shied away from an opportunity to demonstrate my support for them and their families". so ya... apparently... MacKay is supporting the Canadian Armed Forces by wearing a bastardized Canadian flag tee from a pro-gun lobby organization! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 MacKay has become notorious for making some really dumb moves. this one ranks right up there... MacKay's ongoing, year over year, displayed lack of political acumen... is legion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) The NFAs No Compromise campaign was born out of the reclassifications of the Swiss Arms and CZ 858 rifles, coupled with the ongoing inquiry into the famed High River Gun-Grab..it has since morphed into the theme for the scrapping of the current Firearms Act, a cause championed by the NFA. that's quite the grab-bag, catch-all list you're throwing down there... why sully the thrust of the actual origin by adding in your personal beef/whine list. Just be loud and proud of that bastardized Canadian flag-assault rifle logo and "gun enthusiasts" apparent 'rage' over the RCMP for daring to reclassify, as prohibited, previously restricted firearms. but I still don't get what's the issue of compromise (as in NO compromise) over? As I interpret, the Harper Conservative government kowtowed to it's gun owner base complement by providing an initial amnesty to the RCMP reclassification... and then further extending upon that amnesty. So... again... what's the NO compromise aspect? Edited August 28, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 in regards his wearing the CNFA's "Canadian Flag-Assault Rifle --- No Compromise" t-shirt, Harper Conservative Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, said: "Having spent a great deal of time with members of the Canadian Forces, I have never shied away from an opportunity to demonstrate my support for them and their families". so ya... apparently... MacKay is supporting the Canadian Armed Forces by wearing a bastardized Canadian flag tee from a pro-gun lobby organization! Yeah but doesn't he owe them one for flying him into and out of his fishing camp? Or was that another one of Harper's boys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) Yeah but doesn't he owe them one for flying him into and out of his fishing camp? Or was that another one of Harper's boys? does MacKay owe the Canadian Forces for his personal fishing trip helicopter pick-up... or for how the Canadian Forces attempted to provide him cover after the fact: "Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show. The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star." Edited August 28, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 that's quite the grab-bag, catch-all list you're throwing down there... why sully the thrust of the actual origin by adding in your personal beef/whine list. Just be loud and proud of that bastardized Canadian flag-assault rifle logo and "gun enthusiasts" apparent 'rage' over the RCMP for daring to reclassify, as prohibited, previously restricted firearms. Their intent (deregulation) and my description is quite easily confirmed by gleaming any of their mention in the MSM or their social media activity…………As to my own “list”, some of what they call for I certainly do agree with, other key areas not so much…..For instance, I’m sure you recall our previous discussion in the “High River Gun-Grab” thread last year… Also, both the Swiss Arms and CZ 858 rifles were predominantly non-restricted rifles (with a small number with shorter barrels being restricted), receiving their classification and FRT# under the Chrétien Government. but I still don't get what's the issue of compromise (as in NO compromise) over? As I interpret, the Harper Conservative government kowtowed to it's gun owner base complement by providing an initial amnesty to the RCMP reclassification... and then further extending upon that amnesty. So... again... what's the NO compromise aspect? Their intent is deregulation to the point of jurisdictions like Alaska and Texas not even recognizing, which would certainly never be palatable to any Canadian Government/political party………What is ironic, they previously graded Peter Mackay with an “F” rating for gun rights support over past, previous comments suggesting firearms licencing was a positive contrast between us and the Americans..... They rally against the Harper Conservatives nearly as much as the other parties, with a large percent of their (few) members favouring the Libertarians or other such fringe parties…….and funny enough, consider having a disabled veteran offer the Justice Minister a sweater and lapel pin, and his adornment of it, quite the coup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 does MacKay owe the Canadian Forces for his personal fishing trip helicopter pick-up... or for how the Canadian Forces attempted to provide him cover after the fact: "Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show. The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star." He could have avoided all that by holding off on his fishing trip until Allison Redford got in power. She knew her way around government aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 Their intent (deregulation) and my description is quite easily confirmed by gleaming any of their mention in the MSM or their social media activity………… I call BS! The dates of those 3 don't align to support your narrative... and the logo certainly doesn't coincide with your mixed bag catch-all. Quite easily confirmed you say! Well, I had a gander at their website and couldn't find tickety-boo... other than the website trying to flog the tees, there's nothing about "No Compromise". Of course, I stand to be corrected as I'm fresh home from a few beers with the boys. By the by, quite a bit of talk tonight about the crazed Uzi-toting 9-year old... your presence would have helped to 'provide balance'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 They rally against the Harper Conservatives nearly as much as the other parties, with a large percent of their (few) members favouring the Libertarians or other such fringe parties…….and funny enough, consider having a disabled veteran offer the Justice Minister a sweater and lapel pin, and his adornment of it, quite the coup. of the 2 persons in the photo with MacKay, the woman works for CNFA... rhetorical question: is MacKay that "isolated/dense" not to understand/recognize the CNFA's logo/campaign and the implications of presenting himself for a photo-op as Canada's Justice Minister wearing that tee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 I call BS! The dates of those 3 don't align to support your narrative... and the logo certainly doesn't coincide with your mixed bag catch-all. Quite easily confirmed you say! Well, I had a gander at their website and couldn't find tickety-boo... other than the website trying to flog the tees, there's nothing about "No Compromise". Of course, I stand to be corrected as I'm fresh home from a few beers with the boys. By the by, quite a bit of talk tonight about the crazed Uzi-toting 9-year old... your presence would have helped to 'provide balance'! The “No Compromise” logo came about several weeks after the reclassifications earlier this year……..I’m certain you remember the tin-foil hat nonsense after High River, largely propagated by them and Sun News…….As to deregulation, that has been their intent since Bill C-68 nearly 20 years ago.....As I said, if you have social media, a glance of their Facebook & Twitter feeds is all that is required. If you recall, their proclamation after the Moncton shootings, they made their intent quite clear………No need for BS, I’m certainly forthright on my stance towards firearms and political advocacy of the subject, likewise my membership with such organizations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 of the 2 persons in the photo with MacKay, the woman works for CNFA... rhetorical question: is MacKay that "isolated/dense" not to understand/recognize the CNFA's logo/campaign and the implications of presenting himself for a photo-op as Canada's Justice Minister wearing that tee? Both are members of the org.......As to his intent, I honestly don`t know, but the result is clear........gun owners will support the Tories, and gun control advocates won't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 Both are members of the org.......As to his intent, I honestly don`t know, but the result is clear........gun owners will support the Tories, and gun control advocates won't... Yes...may as well get that base firmed up. Liberals and NDP want to take guns away...like in Australia. ...Canadian gun owners are slowly digging our own graves with our timid, apologetic approach to gun rights. Most Canadian gun owners, and most Canadian pro-gun organizations, have utilized a sporting purposes only argument in support of civilian gun ownership. Self defence has become a taboo topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 28, 2014 Report Share Posted August 28, 2014 Yes...may as well get that base firmed up. Liberals and NDP want to take guns away...like in Australia. ...Canadian gun owners are slowly digging our own graves with our timid, apologetic approach to gun rights. Most Canadian gun owners, and most Canadian pro-gun organizations, have utilized a sporting purposes only argument in support of civilian gun ownership. Self defence has become a taboo topic. American gun owners can't get the graves dug quickly enough. You keep your way. we'll keep ours, thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.