Beyond the registry

SkytopBrewster · #1 10-26-2011, 08:44 PM

Glad it's going, going forward (in my little dreamland) how do you think the best way would be to allow licenced restriced PAL holders (handguns), be allowed to carry when in the bush, on your own land, the farm whatever. I'm not for everybody packing loaded pistols in their vehicle or carrying around town. But how do you think they could legalize carrying for hunting/protection from predators without having a bunch of crazies packing pistols. Just be able to carry on say your own land or crown land without being too restrictive?

I think, if you're licenced then you should be trustworthy, get rig of the ATT. So say a bowhunter hunting in grizzly country be able to have a holstered .44 And I know a pistol is not going to kill a big grizz, but better than nothing, if nothing else rattle a couple shots off and scare him off the same as bear bangers would do, and don't forget about the rising couger population, that is what makes me nervous when ont in the thick bush, a 45 would drop a couger no problem.

hillbillyreefer · #2 10-26-2011, 09:11 PM

If the government can trust you enough to own a restricted, and take it back and forth to the range, why won't they trust you anywhere else with it? Why is it restricted in the first place, it's all ridiculous a firearm is a firearm. I have an RPAL and a province wide ATT and at one time a province of Saskatchewan ATT. So they basically trust me to move it where ever I want in those two provinces, but only sort of?

#3 10-26-2011, 09:11 PM

I have an ATC permit right now. I just filled out the paperwork and explained why I needed to carry. If you can justify the need, it should go through. I am allowed to carry on our land as well as our grazing leases.

Scar270 · #4 10-27-2011, 03:15 PM

The fastest way is to get the Wildrose Party elected in Alberta, then they can appoint their own CFO. Then lobby to get me as the CFO, and you can expect ATC's to be much easier to get!

fear 666 · #5 10-27-2011, 03:55 PM

There should be no restricted guns in my opinion. I say the restricted license is show enough you are a responssible person. Handguns should be treated the same as long guns. We should be able to shoot them in the bush or where ever guns are allowed to be discharged, i don't see the difference between a handgun and a rifle, one is just smaller then the other. I don't think this will ever happen in Canada though, but we should be able. The ATT is also a complete ****ing joke in it's self.

Hun-Ter · #6 10-27-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fear 666

There should be no restricted guns in my opinion. I say the restricted license is show enough you are a responssible person. Handguns should be treated the same as long guns. We should be able to shoot them in the bush or where ever guns are allowed to be discharged, i don't see the difference between a handgun and a rifle, one is just smaller then the other. I don't think this will ever happen in Canada though, but we should be able. The ATT is also a complete ****ing joke in it's self.

I absolutely agree!

Big Daddy Badger · #7 10-28-2011, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fear 666

There should be no restricted guns in my opinion. I say the restricted license is show enough you are a responssible person. Handguns should be treated the same as long guns. We should be able to shoot them in the bush or where ever guns are allowed to be discharged, i don't see the difference between a handgun and a rifle, one is just smaller then the other. I don't think this will ever happen in Canada though, but we should be able. The ATT is also a complete ****ing joke in it's self.

Nothing personal buds but...

This from the young man that only 3 weeks ago didn't know where to go or how to get his license?

A young man that has obviously had previous unfettered access to firearms without a license?
At least thats what we've been led to think by your posts....
But... also a guy that still considers himself responsible law abiding and trustworthy?
I'd say that given your previous posts and some of what you've had to say about this whole issue...a pretty rash fellow as well...and a bit short sighted and lucky to...that no one else was rude enough to point this out before you had a chance to get your license.

Maybe you should slow down a a bit and walk before you run.

Nothing against handguns or you but... they are considerable more dangerous because thay require a higher degree of diligence to safely handle especially outside of a controlled setting.
The bush isn't the range and it also isn't the classroom but if someone screws around with a handgun... it can sure be a lesson for everyone a lot easier than with long arms.
To begin with your arcs are shorter and there tends to be a lot less positive muzzle control.
Try this...relax with your rifle in one hand... then... relax with a pistol in one hand....

Now...which one is pointed at your foot?

fordtruckin · #8 10-28-2011, 03:43 AM

[QUOTE=SkytopBrewster;1134107]Glad it's going, going forward (in my little dreamland) how do you think the best way would be to allow licenced restriced PAL holders (handguns), be allowed to carry when in the bush, on your own land, the farm whatever. I'm not for everybody packing loaded pistols in their vehicle or carrying around town. [QUOTE]

I think you just answered it. If you have the license you should be able to carry it. The license means you've got the knowledge about the firearm and the Govt has done the "required" background checks to make sure your not one of those crazies.

SkytopBrewster · #9 10-28-2011, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesky672

Nothing personal buds but...

This from the young man that only 3 weeks ago didn't know where to go or how to get his license?

A young man that has obviously had previous unfettered access to firearms without a license?
At least thats what we've been led to think by your posts....
But... also a guy that still considers himself responsible law abiding and trustworthy?
I'd say that given your previous posts and some of what you've had to say about this whole issue...a pretty rash fellow as well...and a bit short sighted and lucky to...that no one else was rude enough to point this out before you had a chance to get your license.

Maybe you should slow down a a bit and walk before you run.

Nothing against handguns or you but... they are considerable more dangerous because thay require a higher degree of diligence to safely handle especially outside of a controlled setting.
The bush isn't the range and it also isn't the classroom but if someone screws around with a handgun... it can sure be a lesson for everyone a lot easier than with long arms.
To begin with your arcs are shorter and there tends to be a lot less positive muzzle control.
Try this...relax with your rifle in one hand... then... relax with a pistol in one hand....

Now...which one is pointed at your foot?

Agreed, I consider myself proficient with a pistol, that is the hard part, to legalize carrying without having the inexperienced having mishaps. I would even take a more indepth pistol handling course just so I could carry, that would probably be the only way the gov would do it. Take a full day safety course at a gun range, prove proficiency plus have your RPAL and you should be good to go. Lets face it the RPAL course is a joke. I work in the oilfield and the number of safety courses we gotta have just to go to work is alot, I wouldn't have a problem forking over $200 to get some proper hands on training if it meant I could carry. And it would create a pile of instructor jobs!

fear 666 · #10 10-28-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesky672

Nothing personal buds but...

This from the young man that only 3 weeks ago didn't know where to go or how to get his license?

A young man that has obviously had previous unfettered access to firearms without a license?
At least thats what we've been led to think by your posts....
But... also a guy that still considers himself responsible law abiding and trustworthy?
I'd say that given your previous posts and some of what you've had to say about this whole issue...a pretty rash fellow as well...and a bit short sighted and lucky to...that no one else was rude enough to point this out before you had a chance to get your license.

Maybe you should slow down a a bit and walk before you run.

Nothing against handguns or you but... they are considerable more dangerous because thay require a higher degree of diligence to safely handle especially outside of a controlled setting.
The bush isn't the range and it also isn't the classroom but if someone screws around with a handgun... it can sure be a lesson for everyone a lot easier than with long arms.
To begin with your arcs are shorter and there tends to be a lot less positive muzzle control.
Try this...relax with your rifle in one hand... then... relax with a pistol in one hand....

Now...which one is pointed at your foot?

Well l have been around guns my whole life, l went and did my test at huntinstuffs place, 96% on the test and 100% on the practical. Just because l have been around guns without a license doesn't make me irresponsible, have l ever shot someone or got in trouble, no. You saying l shouldn't be allowed to have gotten my license because l have shot guns without a license, maybe you should wake up, you don't need a license to shoot someone elses gun. My unfettered access to guns were other legal law abiding gun owners who are friends, wow man put the cuffs on me. I am also no noob just because l never had a license.

A handgun is no different then any other type of firearm. Take a safety course practice maybe an advanced course and you're good to go. Every type of gun is meant to be handled differently, for sport shooting or tactical shooting. A person should have to learn these before hand. So again there would be no difference in having a rifle or handgun in the bush. You think my opinion on Canadian gun law are rash, maybe because most of the gun laws make no sense and everyone knows it. Try and paint me as a bad guy or a dummy, you're the farthest from the truth.

Big Daddy Badger · #11 10-28-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fear 666

Well l have been around guns my whole life, l went and did my test at huntinstuffs place, 96% on the test and 100% on the practical. Just because l have been around guns without a license doesn't make me irresponsible, have l ever shot someone or got in trouble, no. You saying l shouldn't be allowed to have gotten my license because l have shot guns without a license, maybe you should wake up, you don't need a license to shoot someone elses gun. My unfettered access to guns were other legal law abiding gun owners who are friends, wow man put the cuffs on me. I am also no noob just because l never had a license.

A handgun is no different then any other type of firearm. Take a safety course practice maybe an advanced course and you're good to go. Every type of gun is meant to be handled differently, for sport shooting or tactical shooting. A person should have to learn these before hand. So again there would be no difference in having a rifle or handgun in the bush. You think my opinion on Canadian gun law are rash, maybe because most of the gun laws make no sense and everyone knows it. Try and paint me as a bad guy or a dummy, you're the farthest from the truth.

First...I never said half the stuff you are ranting about.
Second if you have such an extensive knowledge...why didn't you know where to go to get you license?
Third...you mentioned your guns in other blogs...not other peoples
4th... you were the guy that said simply having a license should allow anyone to take their handgun off the range and do...whatever. Now you are saying that there needs to be training and experience.....which....was my point exactly... thanks for agreeing.
5th...I never tried to paint you as a bad guy...just a rash one that doesn't consider that what might be fine for you...might not be a good idea for everyone else to.
6th...handguns are far more dangerous simply because people tend to be more careless with them and many do not take the time to properly train. If a license allowed everyone to leave the range...why would anyone join one or go to the range at all? Why would they spend money on training...if they could just go out and try to train themselves for free?

I've spent the last 26 plus years working with handguns and automatic weapons.

In our organization the majority only carry an automatic long arm.
Everyone is specifically trained on every weapon they use.
Every year they re-qualify and shoot the weapons we carry or might have occasion to use.
Several times per year we use and practice with them on exercise.
Most of our exercises involve live fire...that is to say....the overhead fire support is real... so don't forget to duck.
The other guys around you...all have live rounds....the weapons are charged....the guy behind you in that trench has a live round up the spout...is running with it and you trust him to have it on safe and control his muzzle.
If you gave an accidental discharge...it is real...the bullet will go wherever it is directed to.
Unlike most people we've fired 10's to 100's of thousands of rounds through our personal weapons....on ranges...in all weather...when tired... scared... confused and in the dark.

Despite all that... if I had a dollar for every accident or incident involving any of our long guns or other weapons over the last 26 years...I'd have quite a bit of cash on hand.
But if I had just 25 cents for every accident or incident involving only side arm....I'd have more money.

Glad you agree that people need more training and experience than they recieve during the licensing process though with respect to sidearms though....I guess I must have got some of what I was trying to say through to you..

fear 666 · #12 10-29-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesky672

First...I never said half the stuff you are ranting about.
Second if you have such an extensive knowledge...why didn't you know where to go to get you license?
Third...you mentioned your guns in other blogs...not other peoples
4th... you were the guy that said simply having a license should allow anyone to take their handgun off the range and do...whatever. Now you are saying that there needs to be training and experience.....which....was my point exactly... thanks for agreeing.
5th...I never tried to paint you as a bad guy...just a rash one that doesn't consider that what might be fine for you...might not be a good idea for everyone else to.
6th...handguns are far more dangerous simply because people tend to be more careless with them and many do not take the time to properly train. If a license allowed everyone to leave the range...why would anyone join one or go to the range at all? Why would they spend money on training...if they could just go out and try to train themselves for free?

I've spent the last 26 plus years working with handguns and automatic weapons.

In our organization the majority only carry an automatic long arm.
Everyone is specifically trained on every weapon they use.
Every year they re-qualify and shoot the weapons we carry or might have occasion to use.
Several times per year we use and practice with them on exercise.
Most of our exercises involve live fire...that is to say....the overhead fire support is real... so don't forget to duck.
The other guys around you...all have live rounds....the weapons are charged....the guy behind you in that trench has a live round up the spout...is running with it and you trust him to have it on safe and control his muzzle.
If you gave an accidental discharge...it is real...the bullet will go wherever it is directed to.
Unlike most people we've fired 10's to 100's of thousands of rounds through our personal weapons....on ranges...in all weather...when tired... scared... confused and in the dark.

Despite all that... if I had a dollar for every accident or incident involving any of our long guns or other weapons over the last 26 years...I'd have quite a bit of cash on hand.
But if I had just 25 cents for every accident or incident involving only side arm....I'd have more money.

Glad you agree that people need more training and experience than they recieve during the licensing process though with respect to sidearms though....I guess I must have got some of what I was trying to say through to you..

l knew where to go for my license, l was asking which would be the best place, l found like 10 different places to take it, i was wanting to know what place might be the best option.

You're right I did own a gun while not having a license, a 22, big deal, I know many people in their teens who have a 22 who don't have their license, didn't know shooting them on a farm without a license put the public in danger. The other guns l shot where friends guns.

Yes anyone who has a restricted lisence should be allowed to take their handgun or rifle off the range and where ever they like (where it would be legal) most will agree with me. Having a restricted license in it's self should be proof enough you have no criminal record and know how to use the firearm, it's up to that person whether they let others use it, each their own.

So you are saying handguns should be restricted just so people can only shoot them at ranges to keep the ranges in business and keep people safe. who says people like shooting ranges. I personally dont like ranges, too many people, too loud, people breathing down your neck. I prefer shooting in the woods with a couple others. I say we should be able to take pistols off the range and take them where ever (people will still continue to go to the range for the day because who is going to drive an hour out of town too fire some shots then drive back, but it would be great to have the option to do that while camping). If that where the case maybe then a handgun advanced course would be needed, once done that no need for more safety courses, that would be proof enough you know what you are doing and then once shooting you will get better and better.

In my opinion their should be no restricted weapons. All the M4/m16 ( which are no different then the non restrcted AR 180B, XCR or Ruger Minni 30) should be non restricted with no registry. Handguns should also be Non Restricted, but l would be fine with a handgun registry, there should be a little more mandatory courses and training for the handguns then if this was the case. Remember we are law abiding citizens with no criminal records to get these guns, we will not be walking around with handguns stuffed down out pants and waving them around in public. If handguns are more dangerous them they will and would be treated with more respect so l doubt their would be as many accidents as you seem to claim would happen. Anyways you have your opinion and l have mine.

elkoholik · #13 10-30-2011, 02:07 AM

I agree we should be able to array in the wilderness or on private land. But I will say that the chances of carrying a side arm while bow hunting in Grizz country will probably never happen, even in the US you can not carry a side arm while bow hunting regardless if there is Grizz around you may only carry during rifle season even if you are just hiking in those areas during bow season you are not to carry a side arm. Just food for thought.

Scar270 · #14 10-30-2011, 08:11 AM

Someone commented on needing more training to hunt with a handgun.

I disagree, I'd rather be hunting with guys who have a handgun secured in a good holster until they need it than guys waving long guns around all day.

Grizzly Adams · #15 10-30-2011, 08:20 AM

Come on now, all our gun laws are made with central Canada in mind and have little relevance to the majority of us Outlanders. That's why we have so many exceptions.

Grizz

s_erickson · #16 10-30-2011, 09:01 AM

I have been thinking about going and getting my RPAL course. But to be honest i have very little desire to shoot it at a range. I would be more into taking it with me when im hunting. I just sent away to get my PAL after years of hunting without it, I always had to have someone with me and i can't stand how noisy people are (I hunt with a bow also to avoid that problem). I don't see why the gov't would have a problem with me having a 22 on my hip while carrying my rifle through the bush. A grouse or something pops out on the trail and it would be nice to be able to pop it. The only thing i can do now is have both my 22 and 25-06 mounted to the front of my quad, which i hate because i really enjoy just getting out and walking. My wife is always concerned when I'm out fly fishing in bear country as well, and having a pistol would be a big help. What i don't get is what have I done that is so wrong that I'm not allowed to carry a sidearm? I agree with everyone that is saying there should be a course for it. I'd even be willing to go to the range once every year and demonstrate that i haven't developed any bad habits (aslong as the price was reasonable).

I guess being a mechanic I'm used to seeing unique problems and trying to find solutions, but it appears as all the solutions we come up with no one listen's too. I'm still very young and don't understand the whole political process on getting things changed, but i keep thinking if we can find the right solution how can they deny us. So i guess i have to be like 95% of the handgun owners i know and LIE when they ask me what i want it for and just shoot it in the bush anyways, or be honest and get denied the RPAL.

kronk · #17 10-30-2011, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

Agreed, I consider myself proficient with a pistol, that is the hard part, to legalize carrying without having the inexperienced having mishaps. I would even take a more indepth pistol handling course just so I could carry, that would probably be the only way the gov would do it. Take a full day safety course at a gun range, prove proficiency plus have your RPAL and you should be good to go. Lets face it the RPAL course is a joke. I work in the oilfield and the number of safety courses we gotta have just to go to work is alot, I wouldn't have a problem forking over $200 to get some proper hands on training if it meant I could carry. And it would create a pile of instructor jobs!

You're right, I challenged PAL/RPAL. The practical was my first time picking up a handgun, and the RPAL practical was were I got my lowest mark of all four parts...it was a 94%. Does that make me competent to operate and carry a handgun? NO! It requires time put in at the range to safely operate. With someone who is experienced.
I work in Oil and Gas too, and PAL reminds me a bit of the titanium pinky ring. Engineers fresh out of school who have never seen a gas plant designing to make it ''better''. It required field time to be good at it.

Justflyfish4eva · #18 10-30-2011, 09:56 AM

Jump over to this site and sign up.

http://www.canadacarry.org

I lived in the stated for a number of yrs, where both OC, and CC were a very easy option. Did I ever feel worried, not at all.

landman · #19 10-30-2011, 11:38 AM

In my younger days I owned a revolver and I remember the hassle that went along with it. But I believe that a good deal of the laws regarding restricted weapons - side arms in particular - are justified.
The problem is not with the licensed owners, the problem is that it becomes much easier for the criminals to get their hands on your guns when they aren't locked up.
Fear 666 - to you, or any law abiding gun owner, perhaps there is no difference between a long gun and a side arm - but to someone wanting to rob or murder there is a big difference - harder to sneak a rifle into a liquor store than a pistol. If some gang banger had access to both what do you think they would choose to carry, a hunting rifle/shotgun or a glock?
Of course the argument has always been that if a criminal really wants to get his hands on a pistol he can, which is true. But what about the 15yr old meth head who stole your car with your hand gun in the locked case in the trunk while you stopped for a beer? Probably not someone that society wants armed. Also probably not somebody who would have sought out a hand gun, but isn't going to turn one down.
Granted, the gun laws in this country are geared towards urban settings - it would be nice to have one set of laws for cities and one for rural folks, but that just isn't realistic - laws have to apply to everyone.
ymmv.
Brock

SkytopBrewster · #20 10-30-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landman

In my younger days I owned a revolver and I remember the hassle that went along with it. But I believe that a good deal of the laws regarding restricted weapons - side arms in particular - are justified.
The problem is not with the licensed owners, the problem is that it becomes much easier for the criminals to get their hands on your guns when they aren't locked up.
Fear 666 - to you, or any law abiding gun owner, perhaps there is no difference between a long gun and a side arm - but to someone wanting to rob or murder there is a big difference - harder to sneak a rifle into a liquor store than a pistol. If some gang banger had access to both what do you think they would choose to carry, a hunting rifle/shotgun or a glock?
Of course the argument has always been that if a criminal really wants to get his hands on a pistol he can, which is true. But what about the 15yr old meth head who stole your car with your hand gun in the locked case in the trunk while you stopped for a beer? Probably not someone that society wants armed. Also probably not somebody who would have sought out a hand gun, but isn't going to turn one down.
Granted, the gun laws in this country are geared towards urban settings - it would be nice to have one set of laws for cities and one for rural folks, but that just isn't realistic - laws have to apply to everyone.
ymmv.
Brock

Thats why we need to figure out a solution and somehow present it through CSSA or NFA, because the gov is never going to get rid of the requirement for a licence (nor should they), or let everyone carry, and I want to be able to carry in the wilderness without worry of getting arrested if caught. What are we supposed to do, sit back and wait for the government to come up with a solution?

How about this:

RPAL required (change to a full day course, not half day with second half of day actually practicing with live shooting at an approved range with qualified instructors), would be a good job for ex police/military persons

Get rid of the authorization to transport requirement

Maintain the same safe storage and transport rules (Encased, locked, out of sight) when being transported (anywhere, not just to the range).

Can carry or discharge on anywhere it is currently legal to discharge a rifle or shotgun.

Must have in posession valid registration/RPAL cert.

hillbillyreefer · #21 10-30-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landman

In my younger days I owned a revolver and I remember the hassle that went along with it. But I believe that a good deal of the laws regarding restricted weapons - side arms in particular - are justified.
The problem is not with the licensed owners, the problem is that it becomes much easier for the criminals to get their hands on your guns when they aren't locked up.
Fear 666 - to you, or any law abiding gun owner, perhaps there is no difference between a long gun and a side arm - but to someone wanting to rob or murder there is a big difference - harder to sneak a rifle into a liquor store than a pistol. If some gang banger had access to both what do you think they would choose to carry, a hunting rifle/shotgun or a glock?
Of course the argument has always been that if a criminal really wants to get his hands on a pistol he can, which is true. But what about the 15yr old meth head who stole your car with your hand gun in the locked case in the trunk while you stopped for a beer? Probably not someone that society wants armed. Also probably not somebody who would have sought out a hand gun, but isn't going to turn one down.
Granted, the gun laws in this country are geared towards urban settings - it would be nice to have one set of laws for cities and one for rural folks, but that just isn't realistic - laws have to apply to everyone.
ymmv.
Brock

There are already laws with penalties attached to them in place to deal with all the things you have mentioned above. Have these crimes ceased to exist? Even the RCMP have lost several hundred firearms over the last decade. If the glorious horsemen cannot be trusted to keep their service weapons in check, why should the average citizen be punished. The cops don't even have RPALs, but they are trusted with all kinds of unobtainium stuff civilians can't have. Why not setup a training course for people wanting to carry, once passed they are allowed to carry with the license they have earned? I know it is much too simple a setup, the average Canadian relishes government intrusion into their lives.

landman · #22 10-30-2011, 12:21 PM

I believe that with the proper course it would be plausible to have individuals licensed to carry IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Certainly there are places where it would not be a good idea to have a gun on your hip.
The age restriction would be wise, I know that I certainly wasn't mature enough to carry a side arm when I was 21.

SkytopBrewster · #23 10-30-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landman

I believe that with the proper course it would be plausible to have individuals licensed to carry IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Certainly there are places where it would not be a good idea to have a gun on your hip.
The age restriction would be wise, I know that I certainly wasn't mature enough to carry a side arm when I was 21.

Yeah, I edited that out, thought I would get pounced on there

landman · #24 10-30-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

Yeah, I edited that out, thought I would get pounced on there

Yeah, probably would have, but that doesn't make you wrong.

hillbillyreefer · #25 10-30-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landman

I believe that with the proper course it would be plausible to have individuals licensed to carry IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Certainly there are places where it would not be a good idea to have a gun on your hip.
The age restriction would be wise, I know that I certainly wasn't mature enough to carry a side arm when I was 21.

The "certain circumstances" is a good point. With limited carry allowed Canadians will see that blood does not run in the streets. Once a level of trust is established we can push for less restrictions on our freedoms.

Just a bit of food for thought, the members in or military are entrusted by us to use full-auto, and carry side arms, heck I can hear the artillery on the right day. The majority of these young people protecting us are under 21.

hillbillyreefer · #26 10-30-2011, 12:35 PM

landman, just curious, if the laws hadn't become so ridiculously prohibitive would you still have a revolver?

SkytopBrewster · #27 10-30-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The "certain circumstances" is a good point. With limited carry allowed Canadians will see that blood does not run in the streets. Once a level of trust is established we can push for less restrictions on our freedoms.

Just a bit of food for thought, the members in or military are entrusted by us to use full-auto, and carry side arms, heck I can hear the artillery on the right day. The majority of these young people protecting us are under 21.

Yes, but they have recieved indepth, thorough, rigorous TRAINING". This is what I am saying, with some basic, proper safety training/instruction, we should be able to carry for protection in wilderness without a stupid ATT or ATC

landman · #28 10-30-2011, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The "certain circumstances" is a good point. With limited carry allowed Canadians will see that blood does not run in the streets. Once a level of trust is established we can push for less restrictions on our freedoms.

Just a bit of food for thought, the members in or military are entrusted by us to use full-auto, and carry side arms, heck I can hear the artillery on the right day. The majority of these young people protecting us are under 21.

A valid point - I suppose the age restriction is just playing the odds - I don't know too many folks that young - but the ones I do know have some growing up to do before I would consider them mature enough for that much responsibility.

hillbillyreefer · #29 10-30-2011, 12:47 PM

We are all on the same page, just in slightly different places. I look forward to plinking with you guys out in the sticks in the near future!

landman · #30 10-30-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

landman, just curious, if the laws hadn't become so ridiculously prohibitive would you still have a revolver?

I ended up getting rid of it to help fund a new shotgun, but would consider getting one again. When the pal system came in I had already sold it, and I didn't bother getting a rpal.
There have been a few occasions while bow hunting where I would have felt better with some firepower on hand, but I still always seem to come out alive.
I would put a lot of though into getting one if I could carry while bow hunting.
- Which now when I look at it, is probably one of the reasons they won't let us carry, more guys would buy hand guns for the bush - and we know the goobermint doesn't want more handguns in public hands.