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

View Poll Results: Should handgun hunting be permitted?
yes, unrestricted. 120 51.50%
yes, but with special testing requirements. 51 21.89%
yes, but only for grouse. 1 0.43%
yes, but within it's own season. 14 6.01%
yes, but within the primitive season 9 3.86%
yes, but only for grouse. 0 0%
no. never. 35 15.02%
undecided. 11 4.72%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 233. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 12-31-2011, 05:52 PM
huntinstuff's Avatar
huntinstuff huntinstuff is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta
Posts: 9,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billie View Post
I know that many will act responsibly.

There will also be those that don’t.

I have heard the volley of lead in the distance and I know that a herd of elk in running flat out. Like the BOOM-BOOM…BOOM-BOOM-BOOM…BOOM…BOOM (Yes 7) shots from 300yds behind me at a herd I was closing on at 600yds ( I’m not against the distance if it was a single clean shot, and no, nothing died). Now we want to put handguns in these same hands.

To me, there’s a need to continually promote clean legal kills (ethical if I may) through the hunting regulations. So why should we allow handguns to hunt given this typical scenario above? (Then add the ones that can’t control the muzzle of a 3’ gun so now they wave around a short barrel). I don’t care about the talented gun owners, no problem there, but why do the talented gun owners HAVE to hunt with their handguns? Yeah, yeah, because I want to, got it, the government has its boot on my throat, got it, etc, got it, but you bring the others with you whether you like it or not. Do your rifles not work well enough?

I am not against getting rid of all the restrictions to handgun use by lawful owners of handguns. An ATT doesn’t make much sense to me. I just don’t see the gain against the restriction of “not allowing handgun hunting” except for the ones who WANT to use handguns.

No, I do not own handguns. No, they do not scare me. Yes, I’ve handled and fired many. Yes, I have taken and passed my restricted qualification. No, I doubt I would handgun hunt, as I don’t see the need. Yes, I feel the same about morons buying ANY weapon and using it if they do not have the talent do so.

And HNStuff, great post until you threw in the anti-gunner insults. Sorry, but I was expecting more.

Their was no choice for me in the poll, was there an "Undecided"?

Let's take your comments and put them towards something more common, like driving.

Your opinion above puts everyone afoot.



This world has its fair share of losers and screw-up and chimps and retards and Liberals and communists and lazy, stinking welfare bums. It's also has tons of nice people, respectful people with a hard work ethic and an aspiration for being better every day.

Why someone would want to limit MY rights or wants because of the actions of others is completely illogical. There is no defence. It is anti-freedom lunacy at its peak.

You say you dont own or want to hunt with a handgun. Fine. You are allowed to make that choice. But if you have no money in the game, what is your goal? To make it more difficult for those of us who would be interested in handgun hunting?

If so, you are open to criticism. I see no insults in anything I have posted. If you were offended, since you mentioned it, you must have taken it to heart.

If you are against freedom, you are a communist. That's pretty well standard across the world. And it applies here.

This is beyond firearms. Firearms are but one great example of the ignorant, limiting the abilities of the knowing and free. The government is currently "righting" the many "wrongs" done to Canada by past liberals.

Anti-gunners certainly have their right to their opinion.

I also have the right to expose them for what they are and cram their liberal ideology down their throat and make them choke on it.

Lots of them are choking right now. Lots.

Although I get along with most here, I am hardly here looking for friends. I am a concerned sportsman and Canadian. I am a rabid freedom nut. I am against government restricting us in our every day lives. We don't need more rules and regulations, we need less. We also need to properly enforce the laws we do have.

So when I see those that have no money in the game, yet they take a stance one way or the other, I have to question their motive.....

So, I am questioning your motives. So far, it is based on your past experiences with unknown people during an unknown event. Pretty weak.

Most troubling, your initial reaction is to question "why" someone wants to do something.........
__________________
When you are born, you get a ticket to the Freak Show.
If you are born in Canada, you get a front row seat.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-31-2011, 05:56 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billie View Post
I have heard the volley of lead in the distance and I know that a herd of elk in running flat out. Like the BOOM-BOOM…BOOM-BOOM-BOOM…BOOM…BOOM (Yes 7) shots from 300yds behind me at a herd I was closing on at 600yds...
I don't like that, either. I also don't like people who won't practice shooting. They see the need to spend time at the driving range, but not the shooting range. I don't like short men who shoot too much gun. I don't like hunters who won't move heaven and earth to find and retrieve what they shot. I don't like the *****hole who drove his quad across the river and who was posted with his rifle about 100 yds from my camp when I walked down the trail before dawn. We had words. But what's any of that got to do with hunting with a pistol?

How do you feel about animals that are arrowed in the guts at 50 yards?

My point is that poor ethics and lack of respect for game has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of the barrel nor the size of magazine. Nothing. Nada.

Quote:
( I’m not against the distance if it was a single clean shot, and no, nothing died). Now we want to put handguns in these same hands.
You are saying that handguns will promote worse hunting ethics! OWwwww, my head hurts.

Quote:
I don’t care about the talented gun owners, no problem there, but why do the talented gun owners HAVE to hunt with their handguns?
What does "have to" got to do with it? I don't "have to" own all the rifles I own. You probably don't "have to" drive the vehicle you drive nor own 2 quads nor x, y and z. If you think about it, you'll realize that "have to" is not a place you want to go in making laws.

If not, I can assure you that's a place I will not go willingly.

Quote:
Yeah, yeah, because I want to, got it, the government has its boot on my throat, got it, etc, got it,....
No, you don't.

Quote:
Do your rifles not work well enough?
Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. ~Mahatma Gandhi

Quote:
I just don’t see the gain against the restriction of “not allowing handgun hunting” except for the ones who WANT to use handguns.
And you think that opposing irrational laws which prevent people from doing what they want does not amount to a gain? We should find that far, far more scary than guns with short barrels.

I don't see the "need" for a lot of things, but I would fight for your right to own or do those things unless you were harming someone else or you were causing my taxes to go up or...something! I wish you felt the same way. If you did, we would live in a better country.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-31-2011, 06:14 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctd View Post
I am one who is willing to sacrifice a few freedoms ...
Why? Where will that end? Who will decide which are the "small" freedoms that can be surrendered and which are the "large" freedoms? You?

Quote:
Or we could make it so that lets say Alberta would make its own laws that may or may not be the same as Ontario,...
Watch 'yer mouth, pilgrim

Quote:
The best solution is to allow people to do what they want when they want as long as their direct actions do not affect innocent non involved people.
But at what point do we draw the line?
It's not hard. You know where the line is. So do I. So do 99% of the rest of folks. As for the rest, we deal with them as circumstances require but we do NOT construct our laws and our society for them. Not only is that wrong-headed, but it so happens that does not work anyway. We are not safer for it.

Quote:
I am not totally disagreeing with a person who wants more abiltiy to enjoy a sport or even protect themselves. But we need to tread lightly as to what we want.
We've been treading lightly for years. It has taken us down the Rabbit Hole.
No more.

Quote:
Others may want more then you and they could get it. That may not be a want they should have..
Those we deal with as necessary but we do not need to fear them. And we sure as heck don't need to give up our own freedom in the false belief that this will make a better world. It will not.

Everyone is drawn to promises of warm, fuzzy security and release from the responsibility of making so many decisions. It is a trap that has been used by successful tyrants for centuries.

Canada is riddled with progressive totems and taboos posing as truth. It's sad.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-31-2011, 06:16 PM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 19,416
Default

I think the overall consensus is that this is something we should already be able to do, and that the burden of proof should be on the shoulders of those who wish to restrict our freedoms, rather than on the shoulders of the good citizen who wishes to exercise them. If a person wants to tell me what I can or cannot do through force of law simply justified by their personal discomfort level with said activity; I would be an utter travesty. Frankly in this example it already is. It's tyranny, simply put. Tyranny creeps in insidiously, through many small acts which may be subtle and go unnoticed, but their cumulative effects become apparent.

This discussion is actually not even structured properly. The nature of it should be the naysayers/freedom-chiselers proving their case with something besides personal biases, using real data and statistics to back their position. In the absence of any viable data; the activity should be allowed until sufficient statistics can be gathered; and it could only be banned if it was proven highly dangerous. No proof = no ban. Keep in mind the proof would have to be data where allowable fatalities would fall in line with other legal activities such as driving, boating, skiing, shoveling those heavy spring snows, etc. Figures in line with those would have to be allowable, they would have to be significantly higher to justify restriction.
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-31-2011, 06:33 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,832
Default

Quote:
I think Canada has been a great society through out time. For the simple fact that we do protect the masses from the few who can and will no doubt cause problems.
Do we? How many people that commit assault, murder or theft are let back out in the streets to commit further crimes? We don't deal harshly enough with these people, instead we create more laws to give the impression that we are being tough on crime.

Quote:
I am one who is willing to sacrifice a few freedoms which we never had anyways to protect those who will other wise be the problems.
Are you saying that it has "never" been legal to carry a handgun in Canada, or to hunt with them. Never is a long time. You might want to check back to when Canada was created.

Quote:
Driving a vehicle at 100mph does not mean a danger to others.
In the same way that allowing hunting with handguns would not mean a danger to others.

Quote:
That line I think is what we as Canadians have drawn and have lived with for years.
The line that creates laws such as the long gun registry which is now in the process of being overturned? Just because we have lived with something for years, doesn't make it right.

Quote:
I also wish that I could carry a AR15 in my truck all time,
I did carry an AR15 in my truck for years, until someone decided that they didn't like the way it looked and made it a restricted weapon. Yet the mini 14 that Marc Lepine slaughtered people with in the incident that led to the creation many of our firearms laws, operates the same way, fires the same cartridge, and it is not restricted. How much sense does that make?

Quote:
I am not totally disagreeing with a person who wants more abiltiy to enjoy a sport or even protect themselves. But we need to tread lightly as to what we want. Others may want more then you and they could get it. That may not be a want they should have..
Our government has already proven that they can't come up with a justice system that prevents criminals from re-offending, and their firearms laws have not eliminated crimes committed with firearms, so obviously their system isn't working. Perhaps we need a new approach, give people more freedoms, but deal more harshly with those that break our laws, instead of hiding behind laws that have proven to be ineffective at preventing crime?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-31-2011, 07:12 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Perhaps we need a new approach, give people more freedoms, but deal more harshly with those that break our laws, instead of hiding behind laws that have proven to be ineffective at preventing crime?
We need to allow for instant responders. We need to remember that, if left to their own devices, the vast majority of people will do the right thing. We just need to trust each other. Again.

The majority needs to snap out of their collective trance about guns. We have a start. The Gun Zombies have been dealt a setback but they are not finished. We need to remember how we got here and resolve to be silent no more. That means we draw a hard line. Appeasement and accommodation are wrong-headed.

This has been, and is, about much more than guns but guns are important. They are the canary in the coal mine. Guns are also the undeniable, irrefutable hallmark of a strong and free people. The various versions of our national anthem claim that virtue but most of us have been led to a place where they just want to be looked after - whatever that is, it is not "strong and free".

We need to go to a place where someone who wants to hunt with her Desert Eagle is no more than a curiosity for those of us who love our long guns.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-31-2011, 07:30 PM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

Just because a person does not agree with what you think is right does not make them more wrong or right then you are. It does make them an individual with their own thoughts.

Making an argument about how Liberal society is, well those my parents age 40+ are to blame, after all they are the ones who choose the Goverments in the past and they are the ones who allowed the laws of Canada to be misdirected to protect the criminal.

The laws we have nowadays are the result of when Canada was formed. But the changes, additions along with interpretations and the leaning one way or the other is the direct result in the last 30- 40 years.

Our laws are there to protect the masses. They do not cater to the elitist or the individual. Should they. Should we model ourselves on do as we want society, or should we allow a sacrifice to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

You want to hunt with a handgun, I want to hunt from the seat of my warm pick up truck, or the seat of my quad. Why I cannot is due to the laws reguarding the discharging of a firearm from within a vehicle. (which resulted from drive by shootings) Cause and effect. It has nothing to do with hunting. Hunting is the harvesting of an animal. How you carry that out should be up to the individual. You guys are right about that.
But we have laws, rules and regulations. That you may or may not agree with.
Maybe we should re-write the whole firearms law along with the hunting laws. We should just gid rid of all firearm laws.

A person using a firearm to kill another person, rob a store etc will only be charged with the actual intent and that be it. So no difference between robbing a store with a knife or a firearm. The severity of the crime is not affected by the tools used to commit the crime.

That to me is the best idea ever. The penaltys for everything should be a hammer, chisel, bread, water, big rocks to small rocks. Maybe coal to keep them warm in the winter.

Should we get rid of all firearms laws? All requirements to posses them, allow anyone to posses them?
The same for hunting, there should be no test for hunting, a person should be able to hunt year round as they see fit.
We as individuals should be able to manage the situation overall with out interferance from the Goverment.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-31-2011, 08:22 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,832
Default

Quote:
The laws we have nowadays are the result of when Canada was formed. But the changes, additions along with interpretations and the leaning one way or the other is the direct result in the last 30- 40 years.
Yes, and those changes or additions were not always the result of an actual need to make those changes. Some of those laws were the result of political posturing by a government, to give the impression that they were being tough on crime, when in fact that wasn't the case.

Quote:
They do not cater to the elitist or the individual.
Actually many laws do cater to certain groups or even to certain individuals. The majority of Canadians were never in favor of some laws, and in fact even the majority of MPs were against some laws, but the vote was whipped, so in fact those laws were passed to appease a very small political group, or even an individual party leader.

Quote:

You want to hunt with a handgun, I want to hunt from the seat of my warm pick up truck, or the seat of my quad. Why I cannot is due to the laws reguarding the discharging of a firearm from within a vehicle. (which resulted from drive by shootings) Cause and effect. It has nothing to do with hunting.
Do you really expect us to believe that is why you can't legally discharge a firearm from a vehicle?Do you actually even believe that yourself?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.

Last edited by elkhunter11; 12-31-2011 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-31-2011, 09:12 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Do you really expect us to believe that is why you can't legally discharge a firearm from a vehicle?Do you actually even believe that yourself?
You made me spill my coffee.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-31-2011, 09:46 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,832
Default

Quote:
You made me spill my coffee.
Considering that some provinces had laws against having loaded firearms in vehicles, or discharging firearms from motor vehicles while hunting, long before the current federal laws came in to effect, I found it funny myself. When I started hunting in Saskatchewan in the early 70s, they already had hunting regulations prohibiting ammunition in any magazine attached to the firearm, when the firearm was in/on a motor vehicle.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-31-2011, 10:01 PM
IR_mike IR_mike is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
Default

^^^^^^Long before drive bys were common place in the "hood"?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-31-2011, 10:40 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

It's hard to have a rational conversation with someone who is emotional. There's a lot of emotions around the gun file. Too bad there isn't an equivalent amount of fact.

I'm just about convinced that we will only see rational gun laws in this country (which should include CCW) if homosexuals and feminists get interested in the cause. As much as I dislike both of those groups, I must admit that they don't take "no" for an answer and have the balls for a fight. Most gun owners don't. That's a helluva situation, if you ask me.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-01-2012, 01:15 AM
uglyelk uglyelk is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Banff
Posts: 1,578
Default

Some have taken the following positions:

1) Don't know anything about it so I'm against it! (An informed decision' I don't know schit so don't do it)

2) I don't use hand guns so I'm against it! (Anyone remember when the long bow folk were opposed to compound bows in hunting season, now it's compound bow people opposed to cross bows. We resist change a wee bit.)





You appear to suffer a mutual malaise.

And then we have Beans....he's against everything.

I don't regret those of us who have died in foreign lands to keep us free. There are days however that I am deeply disappointed in how some of my fellow Canadians exercise that freedom.

If your not interested in handgun hunting exercise your freedom to not participate. Don't seek to impose petty restricitons on the rest of us.

I begin to suspect the evil we opposed in foreign lands has washed up on our shores.
__________________
Fortiter et Recte
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-01-2012, 01:21 AM
uglyelk uglyelk is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Banff
Posts: 1,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
I'm just about convinced that we will only see rational gun laws in this country (which should include CCW) if homosexuals and feminists get interested in the cause. As much as I dislike both of those groups, I must admit that they don't take "no" for an answer and have the balls for a fight. Most gun owners don't. That's a helluva situation, if you ask me.
Your actually on the money, when we make enough noise that hoplophobia is viewed as a hate crime we will realise the measure of freedom that once was common place.
__________________
Fortiter et Recte
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-01-2012, 02:09 AM
ctd ctd is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,378
Default

If the current rules, regulations and laws do not appeal to you. Then you need to vote the proper people in place to do what you want them to do. Unfortunatly allowing handguns for what ever reason is not even in the running for any major attention. There are many other issues to deal with.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-01-2012, 02:17 AM
IR_mike IR_mike is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctd View Post
If the current rules, regulations and laws do not appeal to you. Then you need to vote the proper people in place to do what you want them to do. Unfortunatly allowing handguns for what ever reason is not even in the running for any major attention. There are many other issues to deal with.
The conservatives have been voted in with the promise of scrapping the LGR.

It is a start.....getting rid of the the restriction of certain firearms is next and attainable.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-01-2012, 03:17 AM
Kitscoty Bear Slayer(KBS)'s Avatar
Kitscoty Bear Slayer(KBS) Kitscoty Bear Slayer(KBS) is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 393
Default

All I know is years ago before I was even born several brave men and women went to unknown places.They fought a fight they were never supposed to win.
They did this to protect my(your) freedom and my(your) rights,they won.They did this using firearms and from the many I know or have talked to(rip)you used what was at hand.
I mean really how can anyone even question such a freedom that was already paid for in blood.


My point is if you want to hunt with a handgun it is a right that has already been paid for a long time ago.
Allot of the anti gunners seem to forget what the country is protected with,it's guns and lots of them.
Guess what will happen when brave people are needed again,you will probably get sorry pls delete or i'm at an occupy protest or I would but I am against guns
Your keyboard is not going to protect you
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-01-2012, 05:35 AM
Lonnie Lonnie is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitscoty Bear Slayer(KBS) View Post
All I know is years ago before I was even born several brave men and women went to unknown places.They fought a fight they were never supposed to win.
They did this to protect my(your) freedom and my(your) rights,they won.They did this using firearms and from the many I know or have talked to(rip)you used what was at hand.
I mean really how can anyone even question such a freedom that was already paid for in blood.


My point is if you want to hunt with a handgun it is a right that has already been paid for a long time ago.
Allot of the anti gunners seem to forget what the country is protected with,it's guns and lots of them.
Guess what will happen when brave people are needed again,you will probably get sorry pls delete or i'm at an occupy protest or I would but I am against guns
Your keyboard is not going to protect you
LEAST WE FORGET: most have no Idea what they fought and died for some think that it was for the Jews and some think that it was to free Germany but very few think that it was to stop a goverment. and now it seams that the masses are taking us right done that path where the goverment is going to protect us with a police forces and gun restrictions. and the majority of people are like sheep and following along just like they did 70 years ago in a far away land that cost thuosands of canadian lives. they cuold see no reason why any one would want a gun either. Until it was to late, then the rest of the world paid in blood.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-01-2012, 08:31 AM
North of 53 North of 53 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
The last refuge of the uninformed bigot who is called to offer fact and reason for his position is a huffy insult. It is a poor substitute for knowledge and conversation.

One day, if you're lucky, you will realize that the most expensive thing a man can own is a closed mind. Until then, please consider spoiling your ballots.
Rocky have you ever had an original thought in your entire life. I watch people like you and Elkhunter on this form and you are a gift to the anti gun lobby. You post like the stereotype red neck hillbilly that the media tries portray as all gun owners. You live in your little red neck closed minded gun toting world and you confuse it for the real world.
This poll did not say do you wish we could hunt with hand guns. It was should we be able to hunt with hand gun. I think it would be a hoot to be able to hunt with a had gun. I also realize it would be a mistake for that to happen as a general rule. The upside does not out weigh the down side. Selfish people like yourself and a few others on this form never seem to worry about others and what kind of a can of worms you open. Then after things go wrong you wonder why some people just turn and walk away and say you stupid fool what did you think was going to happen. Then again it would appear that long term thinking was never your strong suit.

Your posts are drivel and are no longer worth a response. Enjoy your small closed little world while the rest of us fight the battles that let you enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-01-2012, 08:39 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,832
Default

Quote:
Selfish people like yourself and a few others on this form never seem to worry about others and what kind of a can of worms you open.
So which is more selfish, giving people more freedoms and opportunities that have not been proven to be harmful to society, or wanting to restrict other peoples freedoms because you personally don't want something?

Why do you think the first attempts as getting rid of the long gun registry failed? It was because of people like some on this forum that were afraid that the public was suddenly going to be exposed to danger if a change was made. I can't help but wonder if some forum members are actually against the long gun registry being abolished.

The really amazing thing about this entire discussion, is that if handgun hunting was allowed, and there were issues as a result, changes could be made to address those issues, or the entire idea could even be scrapped if things could not be resolved. However some people are so afraid of the "what ifs", and "what could happen", that they won't even consider opening their minds to consider trying something new.

If public safety is really your concern, are you taking a stance to abolish alcohol and tobacco? Each of those products kill more Canadians every year than firearms ever will.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.

Last edited by elkhunter11; 01-01-2012 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-01-2012, 10:36 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by North of 53 View Post
Rocky have you ever had an original thought in your entire life....blah, blah, blah
Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued.

Truth is not subject to government licence or MSM endorsements and it is not subject to your approval, either.

Quote:
This poll did not say do you wish we could hunt with hand guns. It was should we be able to hunt with hand gun.
Owww, my head hurts.

Quote:
Selfish people like yourself and a few others on this form never seem to worry about others and what kind of a can of worms you open
Fear is difficult to overcome.

Quote:
.... while the rest of us fight the battles that let you enjoy it.
What "battles" do you believe you are fighting with your commitment to unobjectionable goals and unobjectionable tactics, exactly?

How can you claim to "battle" for anything, anywhere if you refuse to step out of the herd?

I cannot help you with your fear. You must learn for yourself to overcome it. Then, and only then, you will not react emotionally to positions that are different than yours and we will be able to have a conversation. Or not.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-01-2012, 10:38 AM
colt45 colt45 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kitscoty,Alberta
Posts: 542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntinstuff View Post
Minimum size for big game

Other than that, hunt.
I wish everbody was a sensible as Huntin Stuff.
Prohibtion has never helped anything but , profit for the criminals,
Sensible people will continue to abide by the law.
The majority will cause no problems by being allowed to hunt with a handgun,
I know i will have to practice more and my shot's be be alot closer,
Just as muzzel loading hunting, this year i did not shoot anything but a coyote at 30 yrds, Because i did not get close enough to any deer , to shoot with in my perfered 100 yrs or less.
Hope handgun hunting Happens soon , the years are passing Quickly now, Funny how that happens, when your over 50
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-01-2012, 11:41 AM
billie billie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rural Calgary
Posts: 1,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntinstuff View Post
Let's take your comments .....
Well that struck a nerve that wasn't really intended. As I read your earlier post I expected you would provide a positive position for handgun hunting but instead you labeled everyone that disagrees with you an anti-gun chicken little.

As an advocate for gun law reform it would seem that you would be trying to convince people to agree with you so your goals could be realized some day.

Good luck in your quest.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-01-2012, 11:44 AM
catnthehat's Avatar
catnthehat catnthehat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ft. McMurray
Posts: 38,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billie View Post
Well that struck a nerve that wasn't really intended. As I read your earlier post I expected you would provide a positive position for handgun hunting but instead you labeled everyone that disagrees with you an anti-gun chicken little.

.
This is because those opposing hand gun hunting are basing their opinions on emotion as was stated, not on fact or reality.
Cat
__________________
Anytime I figure I've got this long range thing figured out, I just strap into the sling and irons and remind myself that I don't!
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-01-2012, 12:05 PM
huntinstuff's Avatar
huntinstuff huntinstuff is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton Alberta
Posts: 9,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billie View Post
Well that struck a nerve that wasn't really intended. As I read your earlier post I expected you would provide a positive position for handgun hunting but instead you labeled everyone that disagrees with you an anti-gun chicken little.

As an advocate for gun law reform it would seem that you would be trying to convince people to agree with you so your goals could be realized some day.

Good luck in your quest.
My point has never been to get ANYONE to agree with me. That is what you fail to understand. I dont care if people agree with me.

I state the fundamentals of freedom, sometimes using the gun laws as an example. Canada's gun laws and the anti gun people are the PERFECT example of a socialist, nanny state way of thinking. That being: " I dont like it, so let's ban it", or otherwise infringing on the rights of the masses due to the acts of the few.

I dont care if people agree with me. They dont have to. That's the point. But I have the freedom to show people where the nanny state road leads.

Next year, it might be the gay people that someone might target. Or maybe it will be TV evangelists ....... My freedom stance is just as applicable to them.

Im looking at every tree in the forest as a "right". One gets cut down, most people think "big deal", one lousy tree.

But now a crew shows up to clear cut. Everyone howls about it. The crew argues "well, no one said anything when we took one tree, so we thought we could take them all"

Same thing.

And yes, you are right. I DO label those who infringe or hinder basic rights of freedom. I see them as evil. Their campaign to put limits on life are morally corrupt. They are the one's who promote dependence rather than independence. They truly are without a guide or soul.
__________________
When you are born, you get a ticket to the Freak Show.
If you are born in Canada, you get a front row seat.

Last edited by huntinstuff; 01-01-2012 at 12:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-01-2012, 12:25 PM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 19,416
Default

I for one found the irony in Northof53's post rather sad, rather than amusing. He (or she) is claiming to be fighting for something (by holding to status quo), yet is rather casual about restricting his fellow Canadians liberties so they may fall in line with his personal comfort levels. Who's the hero here?
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-01-2012, 12:30 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,832
Default

Quote:
I for one found the irony in Northof53's post rather sad, rather than amusing. He (or she) is claiming to be fighting for something (by holding to status quo), yet is rather casual about restricting his fellow Canadians liberties so they may fall in line with his personal comfort levels. Who's the hero here?
Yet he has the nerve to call other posters selfish.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-01-2012, 01:01 PM
beansgunsghandi beansgunsghandi is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 456
Default No

Someone who wants to do something different or change an existing system needs to prove or at least make a good argument that doing the new thing will be broadly OK. Handgun hunting is not currently allowed; if you want to hunt with handguns then show us all why it's a such great idea. If you want to hunt from your truck seat at night with a spotting lamp then show us why it's great idea. Both are ridiculous in my view, but somebody on here will likely argue for both changes to the hunting regulations...

Allowing hunting with handguns would take a total re-write of restricted firearm law in Alberta and likely the entire country. Start with that if you want to hunt with handguns.

I'm not against everything, just that which strikes me as stupid and/or reflects poorly on us as a community. "Hunter" used to be a respected term; I think that respect has unfortunately worn very thin due to the actions of many idiots who call themselves hunters. Arguing for handgun hunting in Canada is like arguing for unprotected gay sex with seals, it's just not going to make a lot of sense outside a very small community of people.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-01-2012, 01:17 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,832
Default

Quote:
I'm not against everything, just that which strikes me as stupid and/or which I think reflects poorly on us as a community.
Just a small fine tuning that seems to make the statement more true.

And judging from the poll results so far, the vast majority of the forum members do not agree with your opinion.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-01-2012, 01:34 PM
billie billie is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rural Calgary
Posts: 1,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catnthehat View Post
This is because those opposing hand gun hunting are basing their opinions on emotion as was stated, not on fact or reality.
Cat
I didn't really say I was opposed, but it could easily be inferred. My point was that I don't see the gain in introducing an inherently inaccurate close range weapon to hunt with. To me that is not emotional. I would like to see proficiency proved for every weapon but that won't happen any time soon either.

Anyway, I was just offering some content.
Cheers
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 09:06 AM.


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