Black Rifles. The Poll! Round three.

Your poor me, I'm just an average Joe schtick is getting a bit tired. If you want to talk and interact with the grown ups it's time to act like one. Sorry if this offendes you but to many of us on the site, gun issues are all too real and our passion is expressed vigorously

:rollin :rollin :rollin

What I am guilty of here is giving an honest answer. I am uncomfortable with 'black guns' in regards to the public's perception of them. Would I support further restrictions or worse on these guns if it guaranteed my kids and future grandkids a lifetime of hunting? Yes. At this point in my life, that's where I stand, in the hypothetical argument.

Hopefully they haven't banned pointy sticks by then because that's what they'll be using if black guns were banned and I have my way. That is the very essense of selling out. You really need to familiarize yourself with "black rifles". You'll see they are no different than any other.

Would I support further restrictions or worse on these guns if it guaranteed my kids and future grandkids a lifetime of hunting?

Let's be realistic,who would make such a guarantee?Certainly not any of our political parties,or the anti gun crowd.If you believe otherwise,you need to leave the fantasy world that you are in and get back to reality.

Sheep, you're an average Joe too? That's awesome! Well if we are the same, then why are we arguing? Oh wait, I know, I am a seasonal worker who is the head of a single income family trying to eke out an existance in Calgary. Hunting tags to me mean saving up. A day in the field means a day off work! So for someone who is 'who you are', to try to say that you are the same as I am, is disputable at best. Can't you see that there a thousand different types of 'Average Joe' here? Can't you see that?

"....and then they came for me."

Tree, you obviously haven't got a clue what writers make. I'm just a work a day guy that buys my tags like everyone else. I'm not sure what you are getting at, but average Joe is my middle name. Draconian gun laws affect us both, it's just that I'm willing to stand up and be heard to protect what is so near and dear to me. Like I said, going and sitting in the corner of the sandbox and listening might garner you the respect you so desperately seek. This pathetic poor me act of yours is getting old.

I give. You guys win. I am tired of trying to reason with you. I am tired of giving an honest answer and being yelled at for it. Would you have prefered that I LIED? That is somehow where this has ended up. Where it started was with my discomfort about how the general public percieved 'black guns'. It started with how we should be concerned about how that perception may be the BIGGEST threat to us. I was asked what my line was and I answered honestly. I maybe one of the few that will publically stand up and admit that. I know for a fact that I am not the only one who feels that way.

My failure lies in not being able to communicate effectivelly. My failure lies in giving an honest answer.
My failure lies in thinking that those who represent us may be willing to listen to a different perspective.
My failure lies in being an optimist.

It's time to hear from others on this one.

Please reread the last sentence in my post above!

You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to tell you if the hunters sell the rest of the gun owners out they'll be first in line advocating the ban of hunting and traditional sporting rifles. An eye for an eye.

I know, I am a seasonal worker who is the head of a single income family trying to eke out an existance in Calgary. Hunting tags to me mean saving up. A day in the field means a day off work!

Oh grow up! You're sniveling and it is embarassing. Do you think you are the only one who has ever had it tough? Big deal.
Get down off the cross the preacher needs it on Sunday.

It's time to hear from others on this one.

Well, OK. I wasn't going to say anything, but you asked.
I don't have any problems with your arguments. I agree with some, don't on others. Even if you waffle back and forth, I don't really care. Big deal, it's just a bulletin board. Nothing earth shaking is decided here. I've changed my mind on a few issues from time to time, made a few posts that on second thought I might have taken back. so have others. I'm pretty forgiving of that sort of thing, would be nice if others were too.

But I have to admit I've found the last part of this chain sort of embarassing. I'm not sure if you are trying to suck up to some of the folks here ("I've learned a lot, really respect, yadda yadda sort of comments) or gain some sympathy and forgiveness. Not sure why you would mention being a poor seasonal worker that has to save up for tags, go on about how "I guess I'm guilty of... " I can almost picture you holding the back of your hand to your forehead a la Scarlet O'Hara as you say that. It does seem like you are using a "poor me, you guys are so mean to me" strategy. Have some guys been rude to you? sure they have, but a better reply would be "You are entitled to your opinion. I don't share it" full stop.... or at worst, "Screw off you moron" :lol (I personally think the first option is better, and try, with clenched fists, to follow it when I can LOL) Just seems more manly than the approach taken so far.

But buck up. I like having you around. Nice to have an alternate target to myself when some of the members who think the NRA is a little too "wussy" get going here! :lol

Here are a few of the facts as I see them...anyone care to comment? Only real world comments please...I'm not interested in hypothetical or theoretical.

1) Gun have been confiscated and restricted

2) More guns will be confiscated and restricted and trust me, it is not only black guns that will be targeted. There is a move a foot to target all semi autos which would likely include shotguns.

3) There is no group only targeting black guns. Yes they are an easy target because they have a small following but if the anti groups get them banned, trust me, they will not stop there.

4) Yes there is some negative public perception of black guns...possibly even more than other guns but banning guns based on looks and not function is ludacrous. Additionally, there is no one to negotiate with. Giving in to public pressure will gain nothing. It's not like they'll remember it a year from now and let us keep some guns because we so compliently gave up others. In a rational world maybe but these aren't rational people. Giving up guns now will definitely not ensure a future for your kids, it will jeopardize it.

5) You can't ban a few guns and placate the antis. There is no gun that will be the last one to satisfy them unless it is indeed the last gun. That's why we need to draw the line now. Anyone willing to give up any more guns is sadly dillusional that it will help anything.

More guns will be confiscated and restricted and trust me, it is not only black guns that will be targeted.

Sort of violated your own guideline of dealing with only facts here and not the "hypothetical or theoretical". You are making a prediction. What you or anyone thinks is likely to happen in the future is never a "fact". It's an opinion.

picky picky picky, eh? you can slap me later :b

How about I slap you now Oko.....

If you took time to read the post rather than jumping in with inane comments just to see your pathetic name in lights you'd notice that these were the facts in my opinion. I qualified that. If you looked up the definition of hypoythetical and theoretical you'd see it doesn't apply here. If you have something intelligent to add to a topic by all means post but this crusade of yours to see how many inane comments you can post on every topic is getting annoying. Add something or shut up...okay buddy? This requires no reply!

Grown ups are trying to have a real conversation here about a serious topic.

"( ...Guns Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted...
...It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own...
...turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in...")A Little old but interesting . you could try (www.snopes.com/crime/stat...usguns.asp )

"Never mind about stats and all that other stuff for now."What a ass thing to say I see its about ****ing and crying poor me why why why ok .Keep going in circles some of you are sounding ____real dum .Like a scratched up cd playing the same crap over and over getting no where .

I kind of agree with rug on this one....I don't think anyone is arguing on here that we need guns for protection from crime. Not saying that we don't but when that is the last argument we have left, we'll be close to losing them all. Right now I want to keep my guns because I love to shoot and hunt and that should be all the reasons we need.

Never mind about stats and all that other stuff for now.

Look at it from a purely libertarian/common sense point of view. Why should a law abiding citizen be denied access to certain pieces of property to begin with?? There is nothing inherently evil about a single shot shotgun or a semi-auto "black" rifle. If you are licenced to own a gun (PAL) then why should you not be allowed to own and hunt with an AR-10 for example?? There is no common sense reason why you shouldn;t be able to.

Am I missing something here? If public perception is the problem then maybe the general public should stay at home so they are not offended by seeing someone dressed in camo, or toting an AR. Frankly I am more worried and uncomfortable around a bunch of Hells Angels. If public perception/comfort level is the measure with which we use to ban certain items then lets have at it. I am sure we can get all sorts of things banned. Baggy pants, backwards hats, japped up cars, loud motorbikes, mean looking dogs and so on.

Democracy and liberty do not give you the right to go through life being unoffended with a warm fuzzy feeling. Nor does it give you the right to vote aways rights of others. If seeing someone with an AR in the woods make you feel uneasy, then stay the hell out of the woods.

Just my 2 cents

"I want to keep my guns because I love to shoot and hunt and that should be all the reasons we need." I agree total with you on that .

CJ. I apologise for not making my point clearer. I will try harder to help you understand.

My point being that even if banning something makes the country safer or more "comfortable" it does not make it right. More children die in swimming pool accidents in the states than by firearms accidents. Does that mean we should ban swimming pools? Why should the irresponsible use of a tool by others infringe on my right to own and use that tool??

I could understand if there was something inherently dangerous about the tool (like a drill that spontaneously blows up for example). But in the case of an AR the only dangerous element to it lies in the user. A licensing system is used to ensure that people that aquire and use the tools for which they are licenced are adequately trained and of responsible character to use and own them. Thus my point that once you acquire a PAL it should not matter which firearm you wish to use. A person that should not be using an AR should probaby not be using a 338winMag bolt action.

I will try harder to help you understand. No need to i understand and read these post's .

"My point being that even if banning something makes the country safer or more "comfortable" it does not make it right."I know what you mean .I posted that pcs. out of intrest thats all .Golf clubs ,chain saws ,Base ball bats etc its never ending ,swimming pool accidents i total agree but there will always be the nay sayers .For anything we do .

"A person that should not be using an AR should probaby not be using a 338winMag bolt action. "agreed a gun is just that a gun its the user behind the gun .

Well here you are like em or not....
1) What guns exactly are you willing to give up?
I would rather not give up any, so until I am actually given a some or all or nothing proposition by the powers that be it’s moot.

2) Who is it that will entrench our right to hunt if we give up a few guns?
I was referring more to a bill along the lines of the private members bill that was recently defeated. One that would acknowledge all Canadians right to our hunting and fishing heritage. So the short answer would be the federal government

3) Who do we negotiate with when we agree to give up some guns so we may keep the rest of our guns.

Well this is a hypothetical but, as others have stated if the government decides to ban some guns, neither what I want or you want will probably matter. So it doesn’t matter what I am willing to give up or what you aren’t
4) What guns are you unwilling to give up?
See above

5) At what point will you side with gun owners and say things have gone too far?

? I am a gun owner.
6) Which guns do you consider tactical weapons?
Personally I feel any weapon could be considered a tactical weapon including handguns, different tactics require different weapons

7) What constitutes an assault-style rifle?
This is a term that is kinda used in a vague way similar I guess to "black guns" it's a reference politicians tend to use. I would say it refers to a military style weapon, large detachable magazine, semi or fully automatic used primarily for close combat by military/and or police. May or may not have a foldable stock or pistol grip....

As long as this debate remains civil I will keep at 'er.

Ya you're right kanon...they were pretty lame answers and I didn't like them but hey, you did answer them.

thanks Sheep, I thought the same about the questions,:b sorry tired time for bed....

If you took time to read the post rather than jumping in with inane comments just to see your pathetic name in lights you'd notice that these were the facts in my opinion.

hmmm so "guns will be confiscated in the future" is "the fact in your opinion"... You lost me.

I'll ignore the insults and try to zero in on your logic. So are you saying your opinions are and should be regarded as facts, or are you simply saying "It's a fact that these are my opinions"? To the first option, that makes no sense to any sane person. If it's the second, that doesn't add any weight to what is still an opinion.

Now the insults, that's a different matter. They definitely do make your arguments resonate more and enhance your reputation as an insightful thinker I'm a big fan personally.

Never knew I had a reputation as an insightful thinker but thanks for the compliment.

If you had any common sense Oko, you'd know that when some states "these are the facts as they see them" that it is a saying for "this is my opinion." I'm sorry if that flew right over your head but it seems a lot of things do on this site.

Let's make a deal Oko......you resist hitting send if your post requires an emoticon to express the inane nature of it and the grown ups will let stay up late one night next week to watch cartoons.

k?

Let's make a deal Oko......you resist hitting send if your post requires an emoticon to express the inane nature of it and the grown ups will let stay up late one night next week to watch cartoons.

That's cool Sheep, if you quite insulting anyone who disagrees with or questions you. Any flaws in your logic I've noted seem to generate a flow of disdain and insults from you. FYI, "If you had any common sense" is an insult.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Wasn't an insult at all Oko....just an observation.

Now let's stop this nit picking and get back to the important topic at hand. K?

Deal

In a moment of utter dejection over the Ryan Smyth deal, I threw in the towel. I was wrong, I'm back.

Guys. Sheep has dedicated his life to preserving OUR RIGHTS. We may disagree with him on many levels and emotions sometimes may get the best of us, but we must thank him for fighting our fight.

Here is what WE are fighting about:

They feel that we must be united and strong. They feel that all of our guns 'could' be confiscated due to the culckiers and bradys; history is on their side. They feel that if we do not share the 'line in the sand philosophy' we are antis.

We agree with them. We are hunters and gun owners too. What affects them, affects us. Through it all, what we have been trying to say is that our image, and what the general public thinks about us is our most important consideration in the new media age.

The culkiers and bradys are funded by donations. The more innocents slaughtered with guns the better for these guys! Death = $! Think about it, they are the people whom are hoping that another 'Ecole Polytechnique', or 'Watson College' plays out. They are sitting at home, wishing for an even larger massacar to further their cause! How sick is that? The slaughter of innocents is what they two-fold want. Media coverage leading to further donations, and to put that assult, "possibly automatic" gun on TV to associate it with a tragedy is their best strategy. That is why we have been fighting. It's a 'line in the sand' thing versus a 'public perception' thing. Who is right? I think we all are, and I think we all aren't.