Epps on gunnuts?

[45C]

I know everyone wants it to just be Epps, but come on , it’s right there in front of you to see, there were 2 other big names that’s just as Quilty as Epps.
I fail to see how these businesses are in financial jeopardy over a few ARs, one just posted on CGN how he sold 100 shotguns in 24 hrs.
And ,who in their right mind lets a rat back in their circle?

[.22LRGUY]

Read the contract. What is without doubt is that Wes, through the CSAAA, signed a contract with Public Safety -- in secret -- for $700,000 in costs which the Liberals paraded around as proof positive that the industry supported C-21 and the confiscation. The CSAAA gave them that PR score.

The contract also requires that the CSAAA rat out business who are non-compliant with the government's confiscation scheme every 2 weeks. It also requires the CSAAA to verify destruction of firearms. Apparently, the CSAAA also gets commission for every business they get on board the Liberal plan. Wes lied through his teeth.

I knew the first part, but not the second. I have my own reasons for not visiting Epp's a couple times a year like I used to. It's been a long, long time since going there felt like such a cool peek into the past that I just had to leave there with SOMEthing. Even before covid, the vibe had changed and during that couple of years, I never got to even visit the "gun room". Tried a few times, only to be barked at by the guy on the ammo counter about there already being too many people down there. Last couple of visits=only left with high blood pressure, no purchases.

I've never met Wes, and I clicked on this thread hoping it wasn't a "cancel" thing. The more I learn about this situation, the more I'm understanding the rage.

[thunderflash]

Lay down with the turd, what do you expect.

You'd stink to high heaven!-----$700,000,+ commission per firearm+ oversee & verify destruction,+(most heinous of all)--REPORT NON COMPLIANCE. Truturd stench tactics all the way!! If there is ANYone left at CSAAA with any sense they would publicly,& LOUDLY RECIND this deal. Got to hand it to the sockboy & company ;they know how to spend our carbon tax dollars!-----for their OWN end that is.

[migrant hunter]

+1. I don't know all the nuances, but it looks like the CSAAA needs to very publicly renounce this deal and walk away from it.
They have handed a giant PR victory to the liberals.

[bush1]

+1. I don't know all the nuances, but it looks like the CSAAA needs to very publicly renounce this deal and walk away from it.
They have handed a giant PR victory to the liberals.

There’s the CSAAA annual meeting in June. Virtual zoom meeting and I presume lots of discussion about the fallout. Far to late though to wait until that meeting to renounce the collaboration with the enemy.

[thegazelle]

There’s the CSAAA annual meeting in June. Virtual zoom meeting and I presume lots of discussion about the fallout. Far to late though to wait until that meeting to renounce the collaboration with the enemy.

I hate to consider the glass half empty option, but the other possibility here that many of us may not be considering is that a renouncement may not be in the cards, due to there being a lot more support for this contractual agreement than CSAAA lets on. Certainly with the revealed vote counts, that would lend credence to this position. Sure a couple of people have come out with recantations but even those are treated with suspicion. I would not be surprised if it's only some rank and file members that have issues with the deal, but not enough to scuttle the whole agreement - perhaps the board has convinced some of the others retails to keep mum on the issue, as they would be on the receiving end of the "assistance".

Regardless of Epps' contract with CGN and any dollars paid, the retailer's partnership with the federal government is certainly a black eye and a gut punch for the community at large.

[Callee]

I hate to consider the glass half empty option, but the other possibility here that many of us may not be considering is that a renouncement may not be in the cards, due to there being a lot more support for this contractual agreement than CSAAA lets on. Certainly with the revealed vote counts, that would lend credence to this position. Sure a couple of people have come out with recantations but even those are treated with suspicion. I would not be surprised if it's only some rank and file members that have issues with the deal, but not enough to scuttle the whole agreement - perhaps the board has convinced some of the others retails to keep mum on the issue, as they would be on the receiving end of the "assistance".

Regardless of Epps' contract with CGN and any dollars paid, the retailer's partnership with the federal government is certainly a black eye and a gut punch for the community at large.

A couple months ago I watched the Yellowstone spin off 1895. One of the themes you kept seeing had to do with Tim McGraw's character - he played James Dutton - and how he related to the others. By the others, I mean all of the early settlers being led on the wagon train by Sam Elliott's character. Sam Elliott had asked Tim McGraw to travel with them in order to help him care for the wagon train and keep the settlers safe. Tim McGraw agreed to go along, but made it very clear right from the start that his first priority was his own family, and he would always do what was best for his own family first, The Wagon Train second. If he could help out the Wagon Train while doing what was best for his own family, then fine, but if he ever had to choose, he would choose his own family all the time, every time. And so that was a theme you kept seeing- the tension and conflict with Tim McGraw choosing his own family over the greater good of the wagon train.

I've been reminded of that show and those characters listening to a lot of the posters here talk about the epps guy and all the other vendors who supported this agreement. A lot of people here seem to see the agreement as a betrayal to the greater gun community. Frankly I'm not so sure that it is, but just for the sake of the argument, let's go ahead and say that yeah, this agreement does a disservice to the greater gun community. What's the point? These vendors are by and large small time shops. They are individual guys with their own families to support and mortgages to pay. All these posters here doing all their judgment and name calling, do they really expect guys like the epps owner to lose their own business, their own home, their own support for their own family, all for the sake of some greater gun community? Do these posters seriously expect these men to give up everything they worked for and go bankrupt just for the sake of the community? That's an awful lot to ask of a man just for the sake of the gun community, especially since all that appears to be riding on it is the angry disapproval of a bunch of anonymous blokes on the internet.

I enjoy owning a gun, and I guess that makes me part of the gun community, and I think that's just fine, I would be willing to donate a bit of money to support the community, maybe support the necessary legal challenges, and I would even be willing to donate my time to the community, maybe volunteering at the range to help others and stuff like that. I would be happy to support the gun community in those reasonable ways, but I sure wouldn't give up my home or business for the gun community! If I had to choose between supporting my family and being accepted by the gun community, I would go full Tim McGraw every time, and I suspect that underneath their online Internet Bluster, in real life pretty much everyone here would make the exact same decision.

[thegazelle]

A couple months ago I watched the Yellowstone spin off 1895. One of the themes you kept seeing had to do with Tim McGraw's character - he played James Dutton - and how he related to the others. By the others, I mean all of the early settlers being led on the wagon train by Sam Elliott's character. Sam Elliott had asked Tim McGraw to travel with them in order to help him care for the wagon train and keep the settlers safe. Tim McGraw agreed to go along, but made it very clear right from the start that his first priority was his own family, and he would always do what was best for his own family first, The Wagon Train second. If he could help out the Wagon Train while doing what was best for his own family, then fine, but if he ever had to choose, he would choose his own family all the time, every time. And so that was a theme you kept seeing- the tension and conflict with Tim McGraw choosing his own family over the greater good of the wagon train.

I've been reminded of that show and those characters listening to a lot of the posters here talk about the epps guy and all the other vendors who supported this agreement. A lot of people here seem to see the agreement as a betrayal to the greater gun community. Frankly I'm not so sure that it is, but just for the sake of the argument, let's go ahead and say that yeah, this agreement does a disservice to the greater gun community. What's the point? These vendors are by and large small time shops. They are individual guys with their own families to support and mortgages to pay. All these posters here doing all their judgment and name calling, do they really expect guys like the epps owner to lose their own business, their own home, their own support for their own family, all for the sake of some greater gun community? Do these posters seriously expect these men to give up everything they worked for and go bankrupt just for the sake of the community? That's an awful lot to ask of a man just for the sake of the gun community, especially since all that appears to be riding on it is the angry disapproval of a bunch of anonymous blokes on the internet.

I enjoy owning a gun, and I guess that makes me part of the gun community, and I think that's just fine, I would be willing to donate a bit of money to support the community, maybe support the necessary legal challenges, and I would even be willing to donate my time to the community, maybe volunteering at the range to help others and stuff like that. I would be happy to support the gun community in those reasonable ways, but I sure wouldn't give up my home or business for the gun community! If I had to choose between supporting my family and being accepted by the gun community, I would go full Tim McGraw every time, and I suspect that underneath their online Internet Bluster, in real life pretty much everyone here would make the exact same decision.

I don't watch TV at all, so I can't comment in your illustration.

But I will just say this - that while I understand what you are saying in principle, I'm not sure if that's what's driving all the consternation here. I would posit that it is not.

Rather, I'm not sure if you have ever been betrayed by someone, who you were led to believe had either common goals and were working in the same direction towards that common goal, only to have the carpet pulled under you. If you have you'll know the feeling of betrayal that transcends the logical argument that attempts to be made to justify the actions.

I was married for almost 20 years, the last number of years I was working to try to improve things with my now ex-wife. She at that point discovered Facebook (which in my view, is the spawn of satan, but I digress). Anyway, she started checking out of the relationship, but I wanted it to work so I paid an inordinate amount of money towards marital and family counselling, took her on many vacation to spend time with her and from all indications, she appreciated my actions and encouraged me to continue doing them.

Well, it was years later that I found out that she was only in it for what she could get out of it financially and materially and despite me doing all these efforts thinking we were working towards a single goal of improving the relationship (which she had indicated was her desire too) - meanwhile in the background for many years, she was looking for divorce lawyers, and meeting with other men she met online. I had no idea and had I known up front, I would not have invested anything further into it. I was led to believe that we had the same values and goals; ultimately I was lied to and used to get some free vacations and such.

In this case, I doubt few in this community would not be unsympathetic towards the plight of small business gun retailers. I don't think anyone sees them as the enemy. I certainly don't. But when you have many retailers and gun orgs and individuals getting together to fight this government in court, thinking that hey, as a collective whole, we are fighting to retain our legally purchased property, against a government which does not play fair, ignores the facts and villainizes us - to now have one - or several of us working in concert with this same government in the background - this is betrayal. It's one thing to openly and transparently poll and CSAAA rank and file to ask them what they would like done - because then the retailers would be able to consent or not consent based on both their appetite for risk and align with their own values and principles. If ultimately, the retailers collectively approve the board to do this, then that is their prerogative. But for the board and Wes to unilaterally make this decision - and not even considering (or maybe they did) the optics of working with the same people who are trying to squash an entire industry and culture - that is a hard one to swallow.

[Callee]

I don't watch TV at all, so I can't comment in your illustration.

But I will just say this - that while I understand what you are saying in principle, I'm not sure if that's what's driving all the consternation here. I would posit that it is not.

Rather, I'm not sure if you have ever been betrayed by someone, who you were led to believe had either common goals and were working in the same direction towards that common goal, only to have the carpet pulled under you. If you have you'll know the feeling of betrayal that transcends the logical argument that attempts to be made to justify the actions.

I was married for almost 20 years, the last number of years I was working to try to improve things with my now ex-wife. She at that point discovered Facebook (which in my view, is the spawn of satan, but I digress). Anyway, she started checking out of the relationship, but I wanted it to work so I paid an inordinate amount of money towards marital and family counselling, took her on many vacation to spend time with her and from all indications, she appreciated my actions and encouraged me to continue doing them.

Well, it was years later that I found out that she was only in it for what she could get out of it financially and materially and despite me doing all these efforts thinking we were working towards a single goal of improving the relationship (which she had indicated was her desire too) - meanwhile in the background for many years, she was looking for divorce lawyers, and meeting with other men she met online. I had no idea and had I known up front, I would not have invested anything further into it. I was led to believe that we had the same values and goals; ultimately I was lied to and used to get some free vacations and such.

In this case, I doubt few in this community would not be unsympathetic towards the plight of small business gun retailers. I don't think anyone sees them as the enemy. I certainly don't. But when you have many retailers and gun orgs and individuals getting together to fight this government in court, thinking that hey, as a collective whole, we are fighting to retain our legally purchased property, against a government which does not play fair, ignores the facts and villainizes us - to now have one - or several of us working in concert with this same government in the background - this is betrayal. It's one thing to openly and transparently poll and CSAAA rank and file to ask them what they would like done - because then the retailers would be able to consent or not consent based on both their appetite for risk and align with their own values and principles. If ultimately, the retailers collectively approve the board to do this, then that is their prerogative. But for the board and Wes to unilaterally make this decision - and not even considering (or maybe they did) the optics of working with the same people who are trying to squash an entire industry and culture - that is a hard one to swallow.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, I appreciate that.

And sorry about what your wife did - that was terrible, and I feel for you, I do.

The only thing i'll say is that I think one difference is that while your wife made a promise to be loyal to you, elwood epps has never made that kind of promise to any of us. A lot of businesses will talk a good talk about "being there for the community" and stuff like that, and they may even put on a good show of it - sponsoring kids soccer teams or stuff like that - but despite all that highminded talk, I think most people realise that is is just talk, and at the end of the day the only real loyalty a business has is to their own business plan. I can't think of any other industry sector where we would expect businesses to operate at a loss in order to support the community.

[thegazelle]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, I appreciate that.

And sorry about what your wife did - that was terrible, and I feel for you, I do.

The only thing i'll say is that I think one difference is that while your wife made a promise to be loyal to you, elwood epps has never made that kind of promise to any of us. A lot of businesses will talk a good talk about "being there for the community" and stuff like that, and they may even put on a good show of it - sponsoring kids soccer teams or stuff like that - but despite all that highminded talk, I think most people realise that is is just talk, and at the end of the day the only real loyalty a business has is to their own business plan. I can't think of any other industry sector where we would expect businesses to operate at a loss in order to support the community.

For sure those are fair points. And totally understand business is business. But perhaps if I were to suggest that if that is the case, though, that some of these owners just be transparent and do not purport to be anything other than a businessman/businesswoman.

My biggest indigestion with this is that I HAVE talked with Wes before and the impression he gave (mind you this was a couple of years ago) was that he is against the OIC, he is against what the government is doing, and he is doing his part in keeping as many guns in the hands of legal owners as much as possible.

BUT...I will say this...I have also noticed on several news outlets in the past few years - if there are gun shops that get interviewed for CBC/CTV, it invariably is either Wes Winkel or JR Cox. Perhaps the notoriety of being an "industry" spokesperson has gotten to them. I don't know. But the message that Wes has told me personally does not jive with the actions he led and supported. If he was indeed focused purely on the plight of the average struggling retailer, I think it would have behooved him to at least come out and say just that, and exhibiting a degree of transparency, WELL BEFORE making a deal with the government, which he very well knows would not be received well by the gun community, even if it is just on an optics level. This should have been considered.

There are not many industries in which people have both a personal interest and stake, based on a legal right to ownership, that is tied into the government attacking. So other businesses can focus on running as a business, because the government is not mandating and pressing forward with the confiscation of my power tools, golf clubs, computer parts, etc. Perhaps that is why in the firearms industry there is more of a sense of solidarity between industry and the individual - because both feel the collective push and pesky claws of government to try to take away their rightfully and lawfully owned property, through no fault of their own, and through no empirically shown data to suggest that ownership of the product is detrimental to society.

But going back to full disclosure and transparency - It's like the whole steroids in baseball thing years ago. Those who came right now and admitted to using them, even intentionally - a lot of the fanfare has died down. Then there are the Barry Bonds and Roger Clements, who everyone and their dog KNOWS used them but they are still in denial, suggesting not that they were unaware but that they did not partake.

From some of the comments during that CSAAA round table, it doesn't like look transparency nor full disclosure were on display. That, I would suspect, is what is leading to a lot of the understandable feelings of irritation and disappointment.