The NRA website reports that Canadian federal civil servants at the UN gun meeting seem to be in control of the agenda and not elected Candian politicians. This underlines the need for an 80 % cut in the size of the Canadian civil service. There are now enough whattaburger jobs in Fort McMurray to find work for them.

Well , no shit! Most of us who can read and write have been saying that for decades. The problem is to get the voting majority to see the light.
Good post Ted. derf

Myself,
I have send a letter to Prime Minister office and even got response.
Today they will make a decission towards small arms.
I love guns and I don't want to see my life changed because someone got an agenda to get rid of all firearms.

The worse is one NGO from UK Rebecca Peters from IANSA.

Here is the link:
UN Small Arms :BS:

The UN problem and the Canadian civil service problem are both easy problems to solve. They can both bwe done with the stroke of a pen. It just takes the strength to cancel a cheque.

Ted Gorsline:

Hate to pick a fight with you because I usually agree with you on other matters - but be very wary, if you're a Canadian, about the NRA -and I'm an American who resigned a life membership in the NRA. So they are saying that "elected politicians" in Canada should be the final word on gun issues? Funny, because down here they run financed campaigns against "politicians" (who advocate gun control). I freely admit to being an opponent of the NRA leadership (Ever look at that Wayne LaPierre, its Exec.VP? - a fat cat if I ever saw one) The NRA has done more to make sure that we have gun control in urban states of the US than any other factor. People (who vote) in those states might have been prepared to listen to an attempt to explain why gun owners should have guns - but the NRA's "Take no prisoners approach" made sure we lost those voters. If you don't think it will happen in Canada - just wait. Toronto and Ottawa are what you see today in the East of Canada. Wanna bet about Western province cities that are being settled daily by people you never would have known existed 10 years ago? The world is changing,(sadly) but it is changing.

Gerry375 the hard line approach by the NRA has only been showing it's self the last few years. The reason we have more gun control is the NRA wasn't hard enough.

I am sure you are one of those willing to compromise are rights away. Give then a little today then a bit more tomorrow and you don't have anything left.

Get real the only agenda the anti's have is the total disarment of the people.

Do you really think that kissing the anti's ass is going to stop them from taking your gun's yea right A death by a thousand cuts still results in your death.

What ever one does one should not compromise on his rights doing so slow allows the enemy to have victory in the end.

Just look what happen in the USA before 1934 one could own what ever fire arm one wanted.

Then in 68 things got worse the in 86 even worse and 94. It has been only in the last few years that we have made small gains back. And that is because we started playing hard ball with them.

The only compromise that I want to see is doing away with 1934 law the 1968 law ect.

Fight now fight hard or forever give up your rights.

Gerrys375,
I see you have bad experience with NRA as a gun owner, to bad,
however you don't have to worry about getting your guns confiscated by authorities, farther restriction for gun owners, prohibiting the class of selecte fire fully automatic FALs, M16s and so.
You have all this because your Constitution and NRA standing and watching.
We here in Canada, I think were in that sleeping mode for far to long and now we must wake up and protect our privledges to own and use a firearms for hunting and recreational activities.
We can not carry our handguns,
and we can not use them (technicaly) to self defense.

So, I say, send a nice letter to LaPierre with thanks note for what you have and we will never get back.

My two cents,

Peter

p dog is correct.
We have been compromising to much. NO MORE.
I'm NRA Life/Benefactor member. If not for them, old BJ Cliton and the Kennedys would have our guns.
I don't agree with all their policies but they are a whole lot better than the Liberal crap.
I just wish they were more "hard line."
You compromise, you lose.

I'm as un happy as the rest of you for how this whole UN BS shook out especially from a Canadian perspective. But you must also realize that we have a Govt. that's been in power for only 5 months. And to think they could do a total purge of all left leaning beurocrats in that amount of time is a bit laughable. Remember thay have a very slim majority Govt. and big waves would surely sink the ship. They did manage to adjust the groups who were allowed as NGO's. Good old Windy Wendy had to get asked my the Mexican delegation after all.
This fight is far from over and I surely hope that if the Conservative's are still in power on the next go around that the Canadian perspective will be quite different.
I also hope that if the Conservatives stick around for the next UN waste of time, and Canada has property rights inshrinded in our constitution, which will give us a leg up and closer to the US in the rights of private arms ownership.

Southpaw DEV is right. The Conservatives in Canada are in too weak a position to make big changes. They can be voted out at any time being in a minority. But I think their heart is in the right place and that if they have a majority they will act accordingly. I sure hope so.

I watched the gun thing in Canada since I attended a CASAL (Canadian Asociation for Sensible Arms legislation) meeting in 1968 (that was infiltrated by a guy from Canadian army intelligence) and I can tell you for sure it is a mistake to compromise at all with the antis. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin made it absolutely clear just prior to the last election when he called for handgun confiscation as already happened in Britain.

You have two huge problems. First the doctrinaire anti gunners in the Liberal party and the media who can get the legislation changed.

But once the legislation is in place all manner of bureaucrats both government and even in the hunting and shooting organizations are going to milk you dry with this fee and that irrelevant test. The goal of any bureaucracy is to grow whether it has any purpose or not. That is what the Un is trying to do with this gunthing. Grow.

Politicians count heads. The NRA with 4 million voter almost all male (make the money ) and over 16 (most of voting age) use their votes strategically and that is the right thing to do.

I read posts from Britain and Australia and Europe about their gun laws and I live under German gun laws and I know for sure the NRA way is the right way. If you don't fight you will get walked on. Its an old story.

Addenda,

Remember that these people in the media and UN have nothing to lose. They will willingly use gun control as an issue (to collect ad money in the case of TV and government grants in the case of the UN). They will chew you up, spit you out and move on to something else when you are gone.

Power only respects power.

They will only get polite when they too have something to lose. I get pissed off with all the gun violence on TV. Ban that gun violence and you will affect the medias TV show ratings and the money they bring in with ads. This is because audience reaction tests show people like to watch violence on TV (as a steady diet) more than anything else.

Stop it the viewers per show will drop and the ad value of the show drops alot.

Cut the UN budget significantly and they too will take notice.

If they are going to interfere with our lives we have to interfere with their lives. That is at the heart of the issue.

A far better organiztion is the Gun Owners of America ,more proactive. http://www.gunowners.org and there's a california branch of gun owners.I've met many canadians in Quartzsite,AZ looking for retirement homes in Arizona so they can get residency status and purchase what they can't have in canada.

I don't know gun owners of America but if they were at the UN there was no mention made of them by the press. The media is worried about the NRA and for me that is a good sign.