Sunday, September 27, 2009

Know your enemy

I am really beginning to wonder what ails the firearms community throughout Canada. In fact, having considered this over and over I have come up with the disturbing thought that probably the best description which fits this would be to refer to the majority of firearms owners as CC's -- or "Complacent Canadians." What other description could there be?
After 40-some years of being involved in this fight and experiencing the probability of a complete win (with the immediate action and determination of every firearms owner and knowing without any doubt the end result if no action is taken) I have serious doubts that there is any real desire for those involved to put an end to the constant erosion of their rights -- yes, I said rights! -- for that if the real issue, even if the modern and progressive thinking would reject firearms ownership/use as a right.
The issue here is one that is amazingly simple. It is a matter of respect and responsibility of all those in public office -- elected, appointed or hired for the job -- to fully grasp the fundamental truth that "It is not a proper function of the law to place a peaceful person pursuing peaceful activities in jeopard." That is, to my mind indisputable!
Assuming one would wish to argue that point, I would have to conclude that they either do not understand that fundamental premise, cannot understand that fundamental premise or will not understand that fundamental premise!
If they truly do not understand, they likely could be educated to that reality.
If they truly cannot understand, they must be replaced -- immediately!
If they will not understand, then they have no right to hold that office -- for in truth they have a desire to alter (change) our entire social and legal system to something quite different from that which Canadians have always enjoyed. There are other social and legal systems around the world but, with few exceptions, no one I have ever met would willingly want to live in those systems.
So if they demonstrate that they will not recognize the fundamental principle stated above it becomes your job to insist they publicly and in front of those who pay they salaries and pensions and also their perks and privileges precisely explain why they will not recognize that fundamental principle and state clearly what what system they are intending to support to replace our Canadian system!
It is not as complicated and convoluted as some would have you believe!
You can solve this potential disaster if you wish -- and you do not have to spend a lot of time, money or energy.
You contact your "elected representative," as they are popularly referred to, and tell them (do not ask them, for you pay their salary and they work for you) that you will be having a public meeting in the riding in the very near future and you want them to attend and give a full accounting of their position on the above noted fundamental principle. You should always make your invitation in polite terms, but you must be firm. You should tell your M.P. that you have made arrangements for alternative dates because you understand that he could be busy on any particular date, but that you would then ask him to give you a firm date for their attendance. You should also tell them that you will be advising all of the media outlets in your area and asking them to attend so there can be no doubt about your being serious. And, if available, you should advise him/her that you will have on hand a person who will be asking the questions and who is fully understanding of the issue.
It does work. We proved that in 1979.
But be forewarned, this is not a game and you are not playing with kids. These people have put themselves in a position of having to "toe the party line," whatever that may be, or suffer internal consequences. That is one way to look at it. The other way is to clearly understand -- they work for you and are paid by you to protect our way of life and ensure that laws they vote to support do no place peaceful persons pursuing peaceful activities in jeopardy.
That concept may startle some of them and may even confuse them, but that is the bottom line! They have a responsibility to you -- notwithstanding what the "party" may say!
You may have to remind him/her of that reality, but if you do not, you will be at the mercy of "the party" and whatever scheme they have in mind.
I could be wrong, but so far I have seen no evidence that I am and the march to eliminate private firearms ownership/use marches on -- and on -- and on.
I would appreciate any responses this may bring and am prepared to enter discussions with those who may have opposing views -- but I would also appreciate hearing from those who are prepared to protect their interests before it is too late.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

know your enemy

Good Evening Firearms Enthusiasts:

This is a first for me and, thanks to my wife who is far more capable with the "computer literacy" syndrome, I now have a place to put down some thoughts. However, I will need guidance from some of you as to what to do to accomplish some of the computer things that will need to be done. Please bear with me on that score. The truth be known, I do not even know where this note will go once I "send" it, so you can have an idea from that level just how far advanced I am on the technical side.
With the above caveat I say "Hi" to all and hope we can establish some kind of effective opposition to the clarion call of "more gun control." The best analogy I can think of with those people is the function of the traffic light. What does it do? The only thing it can do, and that is to allow a somewhat orderly flow of traffic through a given intersection which, if it works, pleases all concerned. However, now we have a "new" approach from the "more advanced thinking": --"If it works that well with only one traffic light there, why not have one every ten feet? Boy, that will really take care of any traffic problems." A stupid concept, but one that fits the "anti-gun" mentality.
On that note I would like to put forth one other (what I feel extremely important reality for firearms enthusiasts). From now on, everyone involved in the sport (at all levels and within all disciplines) should only use the term "firearms enthusiast." This does away with the subliminal reaction of many to whom the word "gun" conveys all kinds of horrible concepts, real and/or imagined. An opinion, but one that I have found in my experiences to be relatively effective in avoiding that instant negative response.
On that note I will leave this for now and await comments. All the best to all.