[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Killer

Thats the kettle calling the pot black....All i have gotten have been "smug jabs"!

I hope what you refer to as "smug jabs" aren't us providing observations based on years of Canadian government activities. It's not the same thing as you suggesting as we're a bunch of cowards because we're not out there doing what you think we should be doing. You've chosen action against our advise, fine, but there is zero support for your position somehow being inherently superior to ours. As people have pointed out in the past, lobbying is not inherently neutral, the outcomes aren't just "things get better" versus "status quo". Bad lobby calls attention to us and potentially puts our private trades on the line.

And your challenge to us:

I'm ready to put my money ware my mouth is...are you?
Are any of you...or are you all so alienated that your gona curl up into a little ball (rhetorical question).

Why the heck (how the heck?!) would we put our money into proving that it won't work, especially when we've pointed to plenty of previous cases of it not working? Who do you think you are to ask us to chuck our money in the hole to prove you wrong when we have done it for free already? You're the only who's taking all the wrong lessons out of the CITT appeals.

As far as the "armchair lawyer" comment...i think it would be safe to say that 99% of the people here have never had to deal with the courts...at least i hope they haven't had too , and therefore are basing their opinions on nothing more than speculation and lack of knowledge of the legal system in Canada.

It's a little silly to hold your non-airsoft-importation related experience at self-representation above those of people like MacGyver, who has had extensive experience in dealing with CBSA on the issue and expressed plenty of doubt about your plan. I'm willing to bet you weren't representing yourself against the combined might of the CBSA and RCMP, who BTW, has the law on their side.

Originally Posted by CDN_Stalker

Never said I wasn't, just saying that some who use their 'profession' to enforce their views as being correct are kind of annoying. You know, like actors do? Look at Sean Penn and tell me why he's still around these days.

False analogy. Lawdog use his profession to backup his observations because that's an explanation of the depth and type of his involvement. For example, when he's talking about lobbying, it's not like he's just some random guy there. He's their professional legal consule. It's a little hard to be annoyed at him gaining all these first-hand glimps into different social groups and how he can call upon that in a debate. I mean, he's just doing his job. We wouldn't hold it against you if you legitimately brought your professional experience into a debate.