Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 08-06-2012, 11:33 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
Ok, I don't mind some of the extra screening; but after all that crap they tell you when, where and how I can use it! It's a little excessive. I think there should be good training for the basic PAL, and that should give you a permit to buy whatever you want, and use it where ever you want. Including select fire, "pocket pistols" and regular cap mags.

Am I a law abiding Canadian citizen, with a right to personal security, or am I not?
Absolutely, you are right and you make a good point. Yes you have the right to personal security, what get's in the way of our personal security is a little law called "reasonable force" unfortunately the guy that makes the call on our personal security is a judge. If we make a big hole in some goof that just broke into our home the judge decides if we used reasonable force.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 08-06-2012, 11:49 PM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
Am I a law abiding Canadian citizen, with a right to personal security, or am I not?
yes, yes and not in the way you think.

You hare a Canadian citizen, we'll make the assumption of being lawful, and you do have the right to personal security.

But guns are off the table for personal security. The powers that be do not want you pulling a shotgun out on a burglar or assailant to protect yourself. They want you to put your hands up, let them have their way with you, your family and your property and then letting the "professionals" come and ask you questions and maybe you'll get your stuff back or some small amount of justice or maybe not.

I have no answer as to why they feel this way. Maybe it's as some people say and they don't want to be challenged or threatened by an armed population. Maybe it's because the gun culture further south is so prevalent that our leaders want to be seen as separated from them that we would prefer the rule of law as opposed to people doing it for themselves. The Americans fought for their independence, canada petitioned the crown for their's. This is the fundamental difference in our characters comes from, I believe.

Touching on the off topic subject brought up about military and LEOs and their proficiency with firearms: there are members on this board that could outshoot some people in these branches of service. I don't expect a truck mechanic in the military or a superintendent in the RCMP to be crack shots. They are proficient enough to make the force and most officers and military people, in my limited experience, do not need to be as they bring other skills to the table to keep these organizations running properly.

But then there are those in LEO and various service branches whose job it is to be that skilled and they would humble the vast majority of us.

Which brings us vaguely back on topic to the aurora shootings. Four or five round mags in a semi auto rifle, if the harness is set up, and practiced with means very little in reload time. To be honest, when the shooting started, some broke for the door, most likely hit the floor. Dark theater,open door to lobby, big white frame, just aim and fire. Walk up an aisle and fish in the barrel down the rows of seats. Even in Canada, had he wanted to, he could take those "legal" mags and de-pinned them to accept more rounds. With any sort of practice and intent these are real world possibilities.

I would like to see our restricted level of licensing include mental screening. Sit down, talk with someone. Is there history of mental issues? I would also like to see the restrictions on travel loosened slightly. If you have an acreage or a quarter or live in the woods and you wanted to fire your handguns, I don't see why you should be a criminal at that point, just for firing something that you legally own.

I also think, that we need to examine our lists of prohibited and restricted firearms and rethink some of the choices. There are some in each list that do not belong where they are. I also do not believe that we need to change what we are doing in Canada over a shooting in the states any more then they should change their gun laws to reflect the two shootings in Toronto with illegal handguns in the hands of criminals.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:03 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
Ok, I don't mind some of the extra screening; but after all that crap they tell you when, where and how I can use it! It's a little excessive. I think there should be good training for the basic PAL, and that should give you a permit to buy whatever you want, and use it where ever you want. Including select fire, "pocket pistols" and regular cap mags.

Am I a law abiding Canadian citizen, with a right to personal security, or am I not?
lets look at the margin of error of ,what ever you want to use where ever. I want a GPMG, I want to use it in the back fourty, 200 round belt easly extended to 1000 rounds. 600+ rounds a min. a pal as my certificate of compatancy.. the boys and I head out to "plink" some small blocks. hammer down leads flying. oh. we dont know after 200 rounds she starts to cook off. all by her self. now what. 800 rounds with no fire control till the barrel melts . belt fed not in the pal course. rounds down range no one qualified to change the out come. this may be an extreme example. luckly all one needs to know is break the belt, problem solved. in the heat of the moment whats the chances some one will guess / figure that out. how do we justify tools of modern war in the hands of the public. 100 yrs ago most militaries did not even have full auto.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:52 AM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Can't argue with that point, it is the people, I think the argument that has merrit is the tools those people choose. The Colorado shooting lasted less than three minutes I may stand corrected on that but what ever the time frame it was short. His total victim count was 79, he used an over the counter assault style weapon with high magazine capacity. I think we can all agree had he used a rifle that require reloading after 4 rounds he would not have been able to get off the number of rounds he did in that time frame. The key to preventing these incidents, which may not even be possible is the intense investigation that will go through the entire incident, the person and his state of mind, the venue, in this case a theater, everything possible leading up to the event including the weapons used.

Regardless of what any of us think the the final outcome will be decided by the majority of people. It will not be made by gun enthusiests like the people on this forum and it will not be decided by the anti gun lobby. What just may be the saving grace for the assult rifle crowd is some form of restricted access, if every nut bar that wants to attack crowds of people has access to the style of gun that you are most interested in then yes that weapon is going to be put under a microscope, however if access to that weapon is tightened up then only the the true enthusiest will own them.

I own restricted weapons and while I may not like it I know they are restricted for a reason, I know the extra screening is an attempt to weed out the crazies. I can tell you one thing for sure I would much rather my government use this method rather than a ban, the extra screening is worth it as long as I can still own my hand guns. What it will never do is solve the problem of handguns on the street. Organized crime will always have full access to any type of weapon they want, no gun ban will solve that problem. However some form of additional screening may just keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill is something that the general population may lobby for.

As gun owners, we will all be effected but we may as well be part of the solution than precieved as part of the problem, being proactive is always better than being reactive. We either get our message out in a moderate organized manner or run the risk of falling out of favor with the majority of the electorate, the people that WILL have the final say.

Remember guys this is just my opinion, nothing more. There are people on this forum that will use it to attack me and call me all sorts of insulting names, for nothing more than expressing my opinion, the moderates will see it as just another point of view wheather they agree with it or not.
What difference does it make if a person uses a pistol or a rifle to take someones life? Your argument is based on the need for an "assault rifle". For one, I do not believe you know what an assault rifle is; and two, your pistol is feared more than any assault rifle.
Quote:
Authorities say Holmes legally purchased four guns before the attack at Denver-area stores — a semiautomatic rifle, a shotgun and two pistols.
. Why is it you believe that owning a pistol is OK but owning an AR-15 is not? Don't you know that there are many who would say that pistols are designed for one purpose (you used this anti-gun rhetoric against assault rifles)? I think you are out of ammo on this and just running on stubborn.......thats my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:43 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

To those of you that believe that a limited mag capacity would make a difference tells me you must not be very proficient in the use of any firearm.

If you were proficient instead of running on emotional thought you would know that it would not make one iota of a difference to a shooter that has taken the time to learn how to change out mags quickly or can figure out how to remove the mag pin/block.

You people that believe in limits/bans and especially to the fellow that is willing to accept mental accessments to own firearms all I can say is you guys need to
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 08-07-2012, 06:34 AM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
You people that believe in limits/bans and especially to the fellow that is willing to accept mental accessments to own firearms all I can say is you guys need to
Care to expand your position with a reasoned argument against it?

Every time this discussion comes up after a shooting we brush it off as "a crazy person got a gun." perhaps it's time where we put our money where our mouth is and start doing basic mental health assessments on either all licenses or restricted. Think of it as a mental health check up on all our parts.

We wouldn't be alone in this form of check: as was mentioned earlier in the thread, Israel, Switzerland and now I'm adding Germany and France all have this as a basic component of firearms regulation. This is not a new idea.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 08-07-2012, 07:51 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

It is a slippery slope when you put the future of firearms ownership/ firearms licensing into the hands of anti-gun phyciatrists the like of anti firearms/prolific anti firearms letter writer/phyciatrist Ron Charach.

Bad enough that the emotional thinking left that fear what they would do with a firearm so they feel that they should be banned or the use limited like lieberal stratagist Warren Kinsella and now to many that have sucked in their kool-aid that I see on this board do not look at the facts which is the vast majority of legal firearms owners are the most law abiding Canadians of them all.

pathetic...
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 08-07-2012, 07:51 AM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

some good points in your last post scrapper. i on track with more education at an early age, as well as getting your license to own a gun. any gun. i flunked my driver's once before i was given the privilege to drive.
one of my boys flunked 3 times, but he ended up actually studying, doing what was necessary to get the license, and life is good.
as mentioned earlier, the biggest deterrent for these 'crazies', would be a justice system that acted fast and harsh. colorado still employs the death penalty, but no one has been executed for near 30 years, if i remember correctly.
there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the guy opened fire on people in colorado. he should have been shot and loaded into the gut wagon intsead of arrested and wasting money on incarceration and lawyers.
i also contend that if one person had been carrying in that theatre that nite, the body count could have been way lower. lee
__________________
220swifty

1. People who list their arguments in bullets points or numerical order generally come off as condescending pecker heads.

2. #1 is true.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 08-07-2012, 07:58 AM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
It is a slippery slope when you put the future of firearms ownership/ firearms licensing into the hands of anti-gun phyciatrists the like of anti firearms/prolific anti firearms letter writer/phyciatrist Ron Charach.

Bad enough that the emotional thinking left that fear what they would do with a firearm so they feel that they should be banned or the use limited like lieberal stratagist Warren Kinsella and now to many that have sucked in their kool-aid that I see on this board do not look at the facts which is the vast majority of legal firearms owners are the most law abiding Canadians of them all.

pathetic...
and there in lies the problem. education, profiling, trying to determine who should and shouldn't be able to possess and use firearms.
it always seems like the screening is left up to nutjobs themselves, common sense is tossed aside, and the nanny's step in, lee
__________________
220swifty

1. People who list their arguments in bullets points or numerical order generally come off as condescending pecker heads.

2. #1 is true.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:03 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehntr View Post
I think you are out of ammo on this and just running on stubborn.......thats my opinion.
The thing is that all he has ever been doing is expressing his opinion. Respectfully, I might add.

I have not been chiming in on this thread because I am in Southern California, the land of guns and sun, with my family, getting ready to to go the beach.

Was in Cabela's in Utah two days ago and had this strange urge to buy a kit to make my 10/22 into an assault rifle
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:34 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default The truth about magazines and "assault" rifles

Many times when I hear this predictable reaction from Gun Zombies and from the uninformed, I re-visit this video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM

If the heroism of her parents does not fog up your eyes and if the smug, amused look on Chuck Schumer's face does not make you want to cuff him upside the head - hard - then you live in a different world than I.

Funny, isn't it, how we dote on the opinions of Kookier and Rathgen (who was not even near the Ecole shooter) but brush off this woman's first-hand opinions.

I am heartened by the many sensible opinions expressed here. It was not always like that. There was a time, not long ago, when we were reluctant to speak up and speak plainly. No more. That is a good thing. A very good thing.

My advice to those who express their dislike of "assault" rifles or high capacity magazines - don't buy them. You have the right to your opinion, yes you do. You do not have the right, however, to force it on the rest of us.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:07 AM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
It is a slippery slope when you put the future of firearms ownership/ firearms licensing into the hands of anti-gun phyciatrists the like of anti firearms/prolific anti firearms letter writer/phyciatrist Ron Charach.
That I can definitely agree with. And if you do read my other posts, you'll notice that I do mention that regardless of what we do, someone with intent will always find a way to get a firearm of some sort to inflict damage. That's the realistic outlook. I do believe that we do need to, from time to time, take a look at the qualifying criteria and educational levels required for these licenses and adjust them accordingly, up or down. A mentally ill person has zero mental checks and balances to stop them from doing these acts, nor do the criminally inclined. Deterrents and punishment only work when there is something to lose; i do not necessarily believe either of these classes have either at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
Bad enough that the emotional thinking left that fear what they would do with a firearm so they feel that they should be banned or the use limited like lieberal stratagist Warren Kinsella and now to many that have sucked in their kool-aid that I see on this board do not look at the facts which is the vast majority of legal firearms owners are the most law abiding Canadians of them all.

pathetic...
Another point that I made. What is the actual percentage of violent crime committed versus firearms as opposed to the estimated number of firearms in Canada? There are more people committing crimes in their vehicles right now then there are people doing the same with firearms. To punish every firearms owner because of the acts of people who likely did not have even the prerequisites to own and handle them legally to begin with is asinine.

Is mental screening worth looking at? Will it be effective? can we trust our health professionals to write an intelligent screening process? Not looking for knee jerk reactions but honest discussions. I already have my answers in my head but let's hear some people's thoughts on it.

Are we competant and intelligent enough to de-list some of our prohibitted firearms? I feel that yes, we can, based off of how they were chosen to begin with. Can we move forward on this discussion without it turning into a liberal versus conservative debate?
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:46 AM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

those are some good points mek. i'm curious as to what is actually being done by the pro 'law abiding gun owner groups' now, in regard to being pro active in educating the general populace about responsible gun owners?
i can think of 3 such groups in canada,but all the literature and preaching seems to be incestuous; that is, the only people who read the mags, etc, are people who are already on the 'team' so to speak.
does anyone else see value in some sort of media that sheds light on the situation in a positive manner, directed more at the general population?
i hear some ramblings on talk radio once in a while, but always after some sort of disaster.
and then its always a bunch of us vs. them banter, with no positive outcome for either side.
rather than go round and round pizzin and moaning about our plight, why not try to take some initiative and try to present some useful feed back to the powers that be; head them off at the pass if you will, lee
__________________
220swifty

1. People who list their arguments in bullets points or numerical order generally come off as condescending pecker heads.

2. #1 is true.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:26 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekanik View Post
What is the actual percentage of violent crime committed versus firearms as opposed to the estimated number of firearms in Canada?
We already know that registered firearms owners were far less dangerous than the general population. That suggests strongly that our efforts were, and are, wasted in the entire registration/PAL scheme. Those who follow such laws are inherently law-abiding. There was/is no point; it is a waste of time and money. All that our present laws do is set the table for prosecuting people for PAL offences or "prescribed storage" offences that were never a threat to anyone's safety.

Quote:
Can we move forward on this discussion without it turning into a liberal versus conservative debate?
No, we cannot. These issues ARE a contest between Statists and conservatives. Gun control is not, at it's heart, about guns. It is about control. If that is not realized, we will be exhausted with endless shadow boxing and answering endless hypothetical, emotional claims. We need to see this debate for what it is.

There is only one way - draw a hard line, be relentless with the facts and speak plainly. Our opponents need to be outed.

I do agree that we should make efforts to educate open-minded gun opponents where we can but my experience is that those sheeple are in the minority and are not our true opponent. People like Ploughshares, the Coalition and IANSA and the divide/conquer politicians who find those organizations useful are not interested in fact or reason. Gun Zombies want control. Until they have it, they will never rest. That is the field where we need to meet them head-on. If not, we will be in a game where the deck is stacked and we will lose.

The facts are all on our side. We just need to be willing to relentlessly plough through the labels and snide derision that we will hear from our opponents and know what we are dealing with.

Great thread.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:23 PM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
We already know that registered firearms owners were far less dangerous than the general population. That suggests strongly that our efforts were, and are, wasted in the entire registration/PAL scheme. Those who follow such laws are inherently law-abiding. There was/is no point; it is a waste of time and money. All that our present laws do is set the table for prosecuting people for PAL offences or "prescribed storage" offences that were never a threat to anyone's safety.
Wholeheartedly agreed. The one use for those stats collected during that time that could be of benefit beyond the collosal waste was how many law abiding owners and how many illegal acts. Those hard numbers would absolute proof in showing that it is not as big an issue as gets harped on.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
No, we cannot. These issues ARE a contest between Statists and conservatives. Gun control is not, at it's heart, about guns. It is about control. If that is not realized, we will be exhausted with endless shadow boxing and answering endless hypothetical, emotional claims. We need to see this debate for what it is.
For some, not for all. To a certain degree we're all statists. We pay taxes, we want a government to maintain certain basic services and rewards; some of us have different definitions as to what services the government should supply. That is also another level of debate.

I doubt that you'd like to see a day where anyone can walk into any store, put money down and buy whatever firearm they see fit, regardless of qualification on that firearm or criminal record. So educational requirements are a form of control as is background checks. At this point, I do believe that i just put words in your mouth, however, any checklist of "sign here" "learn this" is a control. The debate for me, and I believe most of us is, what is the acceptable level of control we are willing to put on ourselves in this community?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
There is only one way - draw a hard line, be relentless with the facts and speak plainly. Our opponents need to be outed.

I do agree that we should make efforts to educate open-minded gun opponents where we can but my experience is that those sheeple are in the minority and are not our true opponent. People like Ploughshares, the Coalition and IANSA and the divide/conquer politicians who find those organizations useful are not interested in fact or reason. Gun Zombies want control. Until they have it, they will never rest. That is the field where we need to meet them head-on. If not, we will be in a game where the deck is stacked and we will lose.

The facts are all on our side. We just need to be willing to relentlessly plough through the labels and snide derision that we will hear from our opponents and know what we are dealing with.

Great thread.
And here we agree again. There will be those we can reason with and the numbers do not lie. Let's assume that the 1.9million people registered through the PAL/RPAL program own three firearms (shotgun, varmint rifle, and rifle, an all around combo) that brings us up to an estimate (very rough estimate) of 5.7million firearms in this country legally. How many shooting instances of people going into buildings and shooting more then one or two people have happened this year in canada? two? three? So for the sake of two or three, not even licensed or legal firearm incidents, we ban, raise control issues, and demonify 1.9million people?

There's some facts that need addressed right there. we will not be able to do that by emotional arguments, comparing pro-control. pro-abolishment people to dictators. I'd rather get those middle people on board who are reasonable as opposed to drive them away with our slogans and hyperbole. Let the guys on the other side do that; it'll only drive the reasonable right to us.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 08-07-2012, 03:18 PM
skinnykid skinnykid is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 148
Default

So, as mentioned in some of the previous posts regarding mental health reviews, how would that work? Would you have to go for another check up annually? Everytime your renewal comes up? I mean, just because someone appears mentally stable at one point doesn't mean they couldn't snap later on. Maybe a really crappy divource, a messy break up... Major financial issues...

Speaking of financial issues, who's going to pay for this? Taxpayers? Or out of our own pocket (privately)?

I most certainly agree with furthering the education, of young and old. Maybe further licensing?

Example, we already have "Restricted" and "Non-Restricted" licensing. It could be broken down further, could it not? Say we leave the Non-Restricted out of this.

With "Restricted", you could break it down into "Restricted Capacity" (which would be the easiest to get and where we're at now) "Full Capacity" (more difficult to get) even "Extended Capacity". Same as carrying, "Open" and "Concealed". Why not?


I know that'd come at a cost too... Something to weigh out, I suppose...
__________________
If guns kill people:
Then pencils misspell words,
Cars make people drive drunk,
And spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 08-07-2012, 04:02 PM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
The thing is that all he has ever been doing is expressing his opinion. Respectfully, I might add.

I have not been chiming in on this thread because I am in Southern California, the land of guns and sun, with my family, getting ready to to go the beach.

Was in Cabela's in Utah two days ago and had this strange urge to buy a kit to make my 10/22 into an assault rifle
Everything written is someones opinion. The opinion stated by scrapper cannot be rationalized. Handguns are OK but AR-15's are not? The only explanation for his rationalization is that he is a self proclaimed hunter, he owns a handgun and does not see the need for "assault rifles". That is good enough for him and it is his desire to impose that on everyone else. So, I see this as rationalization by selfish motivation. You cannot rationalize his opinion from being opposed to firearms in general as he already owns them; you cannot rationalize his opinion from being opposed to handguns as he already owns one. He simply cherry picks one firearm, a so-called "assault rifle", presumably an AR-15 which is no more than a semi-automatic rifle or carbine. My opinion and his opinion collide. A guy can make all the respectful opinions he wants..........but you have to be willing to called on it and expect a countering opinion. A forceful countering opinion sufficient enough to change his opinion is necessary (another opinion of mine). Never saying I don't respect his opinion, I can't make sense of it.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 08-07-2012, 04:14 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7
No, we cannot. These issues ARE a contest between Statists and conservatives.
Agreed...

I see it as the emotional thinking left that listen and believe everything spewed by their elustrous leadders against the right that need facts before they make up their own minds on how to deal with an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08-07-2012, 04:24 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehntr View Post
What difference does it make if a person uses a pistol or a rifle to take someones life? Your argument is based on the need for an "assault rifle". For one, I do not believe you know what an assault rifle is; and two, your pistol is feared more than any assault rifle. . Why is it you believe that owning a pistol is OK but owning an AR-15 is not? Don't you know that there are many who would say that pistols are designed for one purpose (you used this anti-gun rhetoric against assault rifles)? I think you are out of ammo on this and just running on stubborn.......thats my opinion.
I never said I was against assault rifles , I said that in my opinion there may be an arguement for over the counter sale of assault styled weapons with high capacity magazines. I can't see the benifit of just anyone going into a store and purchasing an center fire assault styled weapon with high capacity magazine(more than 4 rounds). I think ownership of these styled weapons should be a little more tightly monitored, that way we know the people who own them are bonafide enthusiests. No different thanthe hand guns I own.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 08-07-2012, 04:33 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
It is a slippery slope when you put the future of firearms ownership/ firearms licensing into the hands of anti-gun phyciatrists the like of anti firearms/prolific anti firearms letter writer/phyciatrist Ron Charach.

Bad enough that the emotional thinking left that fear what they would do with a firearm so they feel that they should be banned or the use limited like lieberal stratagist Warren Kinsella and now to many that have sucked in their kool-aid that I see on this board do not look at the facts which is the vast majority of legal firearms owners are the most law abiding Canadians of them all.

pathetic...
Camp Cook while the intent of your comment has merrit, gun ownership will NEVER be put into the hands of the anti's, the future of gun ownership is now and always will be in the hands of the majority of the electorate. Extremists on either side of the issue will never have control of guns. The moderate middle ground are the people who will ultimately decide who owns guns. That is exactly why I stated we as gun owners should actively become part of the solution rather than being PRECIEVED as part of the problem.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 08-07-2012, 04:35 PM
honda450's Avatar
honda450 honda450 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 6,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
I never said I was against assault rifles , I said that in my opinion there may be an arguement for over the counter sale of assault styled weapons with high capacity magazines. I can't see the benifit of just anyone going into a store and purchasing an center fire assault styled weapon with high capacity magazine(more than 4 rounds). I think ownership of these styled weapons should be a little more tightly monitored, that way we know the people who own them are bonafide enthusiests. No different thanthe hand guns I own.
I am right or wrong? 5 shot mag is the law for long guns No? And what do you consider a "assault styled weapon". My Mini 14 shoots pretty fast.

Dang my 10mm handgun holds 8. How many does your handgun hold?
__________________
Smoke or Fire in the Forest Dial 310-FIRE


thegungirl.ca @gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 08-07-2012, 04:37 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Do know that your continued references to high capacity mags is completely wrong?

These mags that you are referring to are not high capacity they are standard capacity it is the anti-left that named standard capacity mags "high capacity" = kool-aid...

Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:05 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
The thing is that all he has ever been doing is expressing his opinion. Respectfully, I might add.

I have not been chiming in on this thread because I am in Southern California, the land of guns and sun, with my family, getting ready to to go the beach.

Was in Cabela's in Utah two days ago and had this strange urge to buy a kit to make my 10/22 into an assault rifle
Exactly nothing more that expressing my opinion, and for doing something as simple as expessing that opinion I have been attacked, called a NAZI supporter, insulted etc etc. What that type of reaction exemplifies is a lack of tolerance, the inability for the extremists amongst us to have a civil discussion about gun ownership. There is a fundamental problem when a person comes absolutely unglued when presnted with an opinion that differs from there own.
Yes it's a delicate issue, but as more and more gun related events happen we better be a little more prepared to present our side of the story, just calling everyone that does no have the same opinion as ours a supporter of Hitler or, Stalin, is not going to garner a lot of support from the moderates that form the majority of the electorate who elect the law makers. You will never get very far with moderates by calling them filthy names and insulting them. We will need an organized civil approach.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:10 PM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
I never said I was against assault rifles , I said that in my opinion there may be an arguement for over the counter sale of assault styled weapons with high capacity magazines. I can't see the benifit of just anyone going into a store and purchasing an center fire assault styled weapon with high capacity magazine(more than 4 rounds). I think ownership of these styled weapons should be a little more tightly monitored, that way we know the people who own them are bonafide enthusiests. No different thanthe hand guns I own.
For the 2nd time. I agree 100%.

I have no idea who Scrapper is, but I would be willing to wager $1000 that he votes for the same federal party as everyone else on here.

And for those who get their hackles up, remember this is a forum for discussing opinions, and a real interesting one at times, all because people express their differing opinions. But remember, all of our opinions will only
get you a cup of coffee at Tim's if you add $1.50 or so out of your pocket. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Finally, not all ideas can be expressed in an a+b=c paragraph on an Internet forum.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 08-07-2012, 05:18 PM
honda450's Avatar
honda450 honda450 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 6,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Exactly nothing more that expressing my opinion, and for doing something as simple as expessing that opinion I have been attacked, called a NAZI supporter, insulted etc etc.
Yup but ya ever been called an Ontario Liberal? We don't like those in these parts.
__________________
Smoke or Fire in the Forest Dial 310-FIRE


thegungirl.ca @gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 08-07-2012, 06:40 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

If you can be trusted with a hunting rifle, in my mind you have been vetted enough to be trusted with a handgun, ar15, shotgun, whatever. I'd almost rather be facing someone with an ar15 that has a spray and pray mentality than someone with a 30/06 pump action rifle or a remington 870 loaded up with waterfowl loads.

The problem as I see it (and this applies to a whole array of issues that the left and right disagree on), is the left has always assumed man tends towards evil and the right has always assumed that man tends towards good. The left sees the worst in people and the right tend to see the best in people. Hence, the right is more apt to trust his fellow citizens with guns than the left, or that his fellow citizens will feed the hungry as opposed to the left who would rather the government take from force those with means and divvy up the booty as it were. While the left views the world through Hobbesian tinted glasses and would place their trust in an all powerful government to control the evil tendencies of man, the right is content to have a small government, with the bulk of power residing in individual citizens.


Scrapper, while you may feel you have been attacked, you have to realize that when you advocate thoughtless gun control on your fellow citizens, you are in fact attacking a persons liberty. Just something to keep in mind.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 08-07-2012, 08:16 PM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
I never said I was against assault rifles , I said that in my opinion there may be an arguement for over the counter sale of assault styled weapons with high capacity magazines. I can't see the benifit of just anyone going into a store and purchasing an center fire assault styled weapon with high capacity magazine(more than 4 rounds). I think ownership of these styled weapons should be a little more tightly monitored, that way we know the people who own them are bonafide enthusiests. No different thanthe hand guns I own.
Excuse me? Your post below is not in agreement with your post above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Frankly I see no need for high capacity magazines, nor do I see a need for assult style weapons. If they banned all assault styled weapons it wouldn't make any differance to us hunters who don't use either. I don't have a problem with certain guns being taken off the shelves and treated like restricted weapons. I have been hunting for the better part of 40 years and I have yet to see the need for an assult rifle with a +10 round magazine in the field. Assult rifles were designed with one purpose in mind that purpose has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sport of hunting.

Now I am in for it.
Pardon me? You know that magazines for semi-auto rifles are restricted to 5 rounds, right. It has to be asked of you because you go on and on about high cap magazines when in fact the handgun(s) you own most certainly hold more than 5 rounds in the cylinder or in the mag. And the handguns you own.....what were they designed for? I think you must be softening
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:06 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnykid View Post
So, as mentioned in some of the previous posts regarding mental health reviews, how would that work? Would you have to go for another check up annually? Everytime your renewal comes up? I mean, just because someone appears mentally stable at one point doesn't mean they couldn't snap later on. Maybe a really crappy divource, a messy break up... Major financial issues...
And it would eventually be used against all the owners of firearms. The government would just keep handing down new rules and regulations to make firearm ownership more and more difficult.

Stress? No, sorry you no longer qualify. You might do something rash with that firearm.

Have you ever had thoughts of hurting someone besides yourself? Yes?? No, you are the wrong type to own a firearm.

Depression? You may use the firearm to hurt yourself, so we have to prohibit you from having any.

On and on and on and on. They would find a reason to deny people the right to own firearms based on whatever mental work-up they came up with.

It could also be used to label all firearm owners as crazy. You just know the media would take that slant and run with it, and over 50% of the public would believe it.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 08-07-2012, 09:59 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagalaz View Post
And it would eventually be used against all the owners of firearms. The government would just keep handing down new rules and regulations to make firearm ownership more and more difficult.

Stress? No, sorry you no longer qualify. You might do something rash with that firearm.

Have you ever had thoughts of hurting someone besides yourself? Yes?? No, you are the wrong type to own a firearm.

Depression? You may use the firearm to hurt yourself, so we have to prohibit you from having any.

On and on and on and on. They would find a reason to deny people the right to own firearms based on whatever mental work-up they came up with.

It could also be used to label all firearm owners as crazy. You just know the media would take that slant and run with it, and over 50% of the public would believe it.
I agree with you Hagalaz.

I wouldn't trust a law like that.

Anyone who has felt the weight of maintenance enforcement department on their shoulders would be very very afraid of any such law.

The thing is, if a government official decides you are of lower value then others, you're in big trouble.

And if one decides you are a threat, put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.

When government goes astray, who do you turn to?
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:23 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehntr View Post
Excuse me? Your post below is not in agreement with your post above.



Pardon me? You know that magazines for semi-auto rifles are restricted to 5 rounds, right. It has to be asked of you because you go on and on about high cap magazines when in fact the handgun(s) you own most certainly hold more than 5 rounds in the cylinder or in the mag. And the handguns you own.....what were they designed for? I think you must be softening
Yes and the hand guns I own are also restricted weapons, I use them just like everyone else, targets, I am a gun enthusiest, I own lots of guns, all with a purpose, some hunting some trap some skeet some target.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.