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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-01-2012, 12:18 AM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryry4 View Post
Obama is doing his best to get punted in November. What a tool.
No and yes.

He's taking advantage of an opportunity.

His opponent is a muppet and he knows it.
What better time to slip something like this in?

Don't see it passing anyway.

The election is coming and his effort will be rewarded by the fence sitters and some small r Republicans even if it fails.
He's just trying to get the "undecided" votes locked in early.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-01-2012, 12:24 AM
32-40win 32-40win is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Drumheller
Posts: 6,733
Default

Never quite understood how the "assault" rifle term morphed into the definition it currently has, so to speak. Great many people were killed in "assaults" with bolt action and singleshot rifles, in the 20th century yet. And there were a large number of "assaults" committed with non full auto, autoloaders.
Clips/mag are not going to make any difference to someone who really wants to make a full "assault" on something.
Chasing a gopher with a plain jane or a tricked out 10/22 or an AR15 with a 22 conversion kit--that's fun to do, but, only difference in the guns is the look of it. If I was a sheep rancher, I 'd likely have an AR15 to use on yotes.
Schumer and crowd are likely trying to sink the bill they have attached it to.
Romney hasn't really impressed the international crowd lately either. Not exactly prime presidential material. I'm sure he has a few wingnut ideas of his own.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-01-2012, 12:29 AM
Tcon Tcon is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 398
Default

I cringed when I heard all the news reports surrounding the colorado shootings. Firstly for the victims and secondly for firearm enthusiasts. I knew the immediate result would be justification to impose bans. I am against banning anything in hopes of "babysitting" citizens.

In the end, this proposed legislation is NOTHING in comparison Romney's open support of Israel. Bullsh*t American wars kill more innocent people than any number of firearms owned by their citizens. It's quite hypocritical. But so is the belief that there are differences in the two parties.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-01-2012, 12:35 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
When your career is based on using firearms, and you don't support other firearms owners, yes, you deserve to lose the support of all other firearms owners.
If we all lost our jobs when we said something we immediately regret, and apologize for, then EI rates would be pretty high in this country. Dude, you can be pretty harsh at times. Jim Zumbo carved out a successful career, over decades, as a supporter of gun owners and shooting sports.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-01-2012, 12:45 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
Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. 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 and high capacity magazines 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.
There is no need for most all things. You need food, clothing, shelter and love. All else is want. That car you drive...you don't need it. I think you should drive some old beater (a Pinto maybe). All that other stuff you have...........you don't need it. Where can I come and pick it up? You're willing to sacrifice someone else's hobby because it wouldn't affect you (or us hunters)? That's just plain selfish. Tell me why an AR-15 is evil (it's not an assault rifle) and a Browning BAR is good. The "one purpose" is not true either. It's rhetoric that you borrowed from the anti-gun community. Everybody has an opinion...you voiced yours. You talk of "the sport of hunting". How about "the sport of shooting"?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-01-2012, 05:58 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,839
Default

Quote:
Jim Zumbo carved out a successful career, over decades, as a supporter of gun owners and shooting sports.
When you turn on those people that supported your career for decades, you suffer the consequences.

Quote:
Hardly, the guy is right back on top now. He made a heartfelt apology and all was forgiven.
Do you really believe that he didn't suffer considerable losses financially, and to his reputation, as a result of his words? He has made somewhat of a recovery, but there is no doubt that his words cost him a great deal. And he is still far from being the icon that he used to be.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.

Last edited by elkhunter11; 08-01-2012 at 06:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:04 AM
M70 M70 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 747
Default

The bias that exists between gun owners themselves needs to go away. Hunters looking at target shooters, IPSC, IDPA, and 3 Gun shooters with suspicion needs to stop. Pistol shooters and AR shooters also need to realize that hunters are not blood thirsty animal killers. We all use firearms and enjoy them with safe, legal, and ethical activities. If gun ranges are to weather the storm that seems to constantly be on the horizon, we better realize we need to work together.

If you are a hunter that doesn't have a restricted licence..... get on it! Buy yourself a pistol and get shooting. If you have never gone to watch or shoot in an organized event, this is the year to do it. Hunters and shooters may not always share the same views but we're allies. We often don't realize that the media is warping how we view ourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:30 AM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
.



Do you really believe that he didn't suffer considerable losses financially, and to his reputation, as a result of his words? He has made somewhat of a recovery, but there is no doubt that his words cost him a great deal. And he is still far from being the icon that he used to be.
I actually know that elk...old Jim is doing just fine.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-01-2012, 08:48 AM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M70 View Post
The bias that exists between gun owners themselves needs to go away. Hunters looking at target shooters, IPSC, IDPA, and 3 Gun shooters with suspicion needs to stop. Pistol shooters and AR shooters also need to realize that hunters are not blood thirsty animal killers. We all use firearms and enjoy them with safe, legal, and ethical activities. If gun ranges are to weather the storm that seems to constantly be on the horizon, we better realize we need to work together.

If you are a hunter that doesn't have a restricted licence..... get on it! Buy yourself a pistol and get shooting. If you have never gone to watch or shoot in an organized event, this is the year to do it. Hunters and shooters may not always share the same views but we're allies. We often don't realize that the media is warping how we view ourselves.
very well stated, and sage advice. 'taking one for the TEAM' has never been more important! very little investment required for the greater good.
i guarantee that if more 'sportsman' tried a few more shooting disciplines, they would find at least one more they would enjoy, and stretch their passion for the hunting season into one form or another of year round enjoyment.
the upcoming rifle rodeo, summer games, and just finished postal match are good examples of fun events that help a guy get get off his but and get some extra practice in, socialize with like minded folks, and maybe even put a few dollars or a trophy on the wall to talk about while enjoying refreshments. 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
  #40  
Old 08-01-2012, 09:48 AM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
When your career is based on using firearms, and you don't support other firearms owners, yes, you deserve to lose the support of all other firearms owners.
Agreed 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-01-2012, 10:16 AM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
When your career is based on using firearms, and you don't support other firearms owners, yes, you deserve to lose the support of all other firearms owners.
The great thing about democracy is we have the right to express our opinion. I am a hunter and I own several hunting rifles and shotguns, I am a trap shooter I own a trap gun I am a target shooter and own hand guns as well. I don't have a problem with registering my restricted guns and only use them at a range that is the law. I will restate my point I do not believe we need to be selling assault style rifles to just anyone, hunters and sportsman have zero use for a magazine capacity exceeding four rounds. Having said that I am fine with those guns being classified as restricted where mandatory registration is required. Using an assault rifle at a range classified as restricted works for me.

Sorry guys, I may be taking a differnt path with respect to this issue but I am never going to just jump on a bandwagon and support the masses. The gun ownership issue is complicated, in my mind I cannot justify why people need assault styled rifles and high magazine capacities other than taget shooting. Assault rifles are designed to kill people, they are not designed for game, and frankly with all the purpose built rifles designed for hunting why would anyone even want an assault rifle.

Now before the next round of burning me at the stake, this is just my opinion, you don't have to agree with me, but please respect my democratic right to my opinion. I will most certainly respect your opinion and your right to that opinion and I am not going to ridicule you for having your opinion. We are not all ever going to agree 100% on anything.

Respectfully
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-01-2012, 10:32 AM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
Not from everyone. I fully agree with every word you have said. Now we can both get flamed
Glad you have an opinion and have voiced it....and yes we are going to be BBQ'ed. But that is OK I would rather be BBQ'ed for having my own opinion.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-01-2012, 10:48 AM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Glad you have an opinion and have voiced it....and yes we are going to be BBQ'ed. But that is OK I would rather be BBQ'ed for having my own opinion.
sorry if my previous post came across as ridicule. i'm not much on sugar coating my opinion, and hate typing, so i tend to get to the point, which often leads me to wiping a lot chit off my boots for comments taken out of context.
thanks to 'assault rifles', and weapons of any sort, you are right, we have the democracy and freedom to express our opinions as we see fit.
it's not about jumping on a bandwagon of renegades thinking we should be able to do what ever we want; it's about respecting everyone's privilege to own and do what they want with what ever firearm may tickle their fancy. (within the laws society sets out)
here is a little ditty i find quite humorous and shockingly true at the same time:

'democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.
liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote'
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
  #44  
Old 08-01-2012, 02:15 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,839
Default

Quote:
The great thing about democracy is we have the right to express our opinion.


The anti gun people use the divide and conquer principle to eliminate one type of firearm at a time, and with some firearms owners actually helping them to attack a specific type of firearm, it makes their job much easier. Once the anti gun people eliminate one type of firearm, they move on to the next type. It will start with firearms that look like assault rifles, but all semi auto firearms will follow, then all repeaters, and finally all remaining firearms.

In the end, all firearms owners will be losers, if we don't stick together, so you might want to be careful just how you express your opinion. If you don't support the people that own firearms that you don't approve of, don't expect them to help you fight to keep your firearms, once the anti gun crowd has their firearms banned, and they target yours next.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-01-2012, 02:19 PM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The anti gun people use the divide and conquer principle to eliminate one type of firearm at a time, and with some firearms owners actually helping them to attack a specific type of firearm, it makes their job much easier. Once the anti gun people eliminate one type of firearm, they move on to the next type. It will start with firearms that look like assault rifles, but all semi auto firearms will follow, then all repeaters, and finally all remaining firearms.

In the end, all firearmers owner will be losers, if we don't stick together, so you might want to be careful just how you express your opinion. If you don't support the people that own firearms that you don't approve of, don't expect them to help you fight to keep your firearms, once the anti gun crowd has their firearms banned, and they target yours next.
x100, in a nutshell. history already proves the theory, 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
  #46  
Old 08-01-2012, 02:21 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The anti gun people use the divide and conquer principle to eliminate one type of firearm at a time, and with some firearms owners actually helping them to attack a specific type of firearm, it makes their job much easier. Once the anti gun people eliminate one type of firearm, they move on to the next type. It will start with firearms that look like assault rifles, but all semi auto firearms will follow, then all repeaters, and finally all remaining firearms.

In the end, all firearms owners will be losers, if we don't stick together, so you might want to be careful just how you express your opinion. If you don't support the people that own firearms that you don't approve of, don't expect them to help you fight to keep your firearms, once the anti gun crowd has their firearms banned, and they target yours next.
Exactly.

If we split up on an issue concerning firearms, the antis will be more than to exploit this and use it against all of us.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-01-2012, 03:14 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

duceman, I appreciate your cander and respect your opinion. I am not a fan of any form of nanny state government dictating to me what I can and cannot do. I believe as a legal handgun owner I should have the right to take my .45 on a camping trip into the back country, however the law is what it is and I am bound by the laws society has put in place. My personal belief has to take a back seat and those handguns just don't make those trips.

I my case I have just never felt comfortable with the sale of assault style rifles and high capacity magazines. It just seems to be tempting fate by making those guns available to anyone who wants one. I do however accept the fact that many gun enthusiests are not hunters, and people who don't hunt represent a huge portion of over all gun ownership and have the right to own guns. I wouldn't be opposed to see a little more control for that style weapon.

Again I fully realize my opinion may not be popular with all but it's nothing more than my honest opinion. I would be 100% against a gun ban but am not so naive to believe that everyone in society would be a responsible gun owner. At some point as a member of the greater society it is encumbant on us all, gun owners or not, to make sure that we are always putting the safety of inocent people first. If that means tougher screening (not a ban) for assault rifle enthusiests then so be it.

This is without a doubt a slippery slope for people on either side of the arguement.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-01-2012, 03:18 PM
skinnykid skinnykid is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 148
Default

I've gotta ask, to what purpose would restricting magazine capacity, any further, do to curve violent crimes? Or banning certain "types" of firearms? Fact of the matter is, certainly in Canada, the amount of violent crimes committed with firearms is one of, if not THE lowest of any other violent crime committed with a weapon.

And if anyone is so naive to think that a government ban on these "bad guns" is really going to make a dent in criminal activity, hit the buzzer, you're dead wrong. People will ALWAYS be able to get the tools they need, one way or another. Be it for an honest living, or something insidious...

I'm not saying that anyone is wrong here. I, for one, don't want what little privileges we have left to be stripped away...

We need to keep an open mind. Scrapper, I don't think you're wrong, I appreciate your input. As stated above, they'll chip away little by little until there is nothing left. I am a hunter, first and foremost. I hunt with a bow and a rifle. I'm also a gun enthusiast.



On another note:
I do wish we had the same privileges that the Americans enjoy... Like varmint hunting with suppressors... On AR platforms... With 30 round magazines...
__________________
If guns kill people:
Then pencils misspell words,
Cars make people drive drunk,
And spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-01-2012, 03:48 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The anti gun people use the divide and conquer principle to eliminate one type of firearm at a time, and with some firearms owners actually helping them to attack a specific type of firearm, it makes their job much easier. Once the anti gun people eliminate one type of firearm, they move on to the next type. It will start with firearms that look like assault rifles, but all semi auto firearms will follow, then all repeaters, and finally all remaining firearms.

In the end, all firearms owners will be losers, if we don't stick together, so you might want to be careful just how you express your opinion. If you don't support the people that own firearms that you don't approve of, don't expect them to help you fight to keep your firearms, once the anti gun crowd has their firearms banned, and they target yours next.
Elk, I am going to respectfully disagree with the tone of this remark. It seems you are essentially saying is that I am entitled to my opinion as long as it is the same as what you precieve to be that of all responsible gun owners. Why would I want to be careful on how I express my opinion. Should I be afraid my opinion may not be popular with all, frankly from a pure democratic perspective the very health of that democracy is measured by the fact we don't all have the same opinion none of us should feel we have to "be careful on how we express our opinion".

If the whole premisis in our fight with the anti's means we have to abandon our individual beliefs and opinions the fight is already lost, there is no battle worth fighting that requires people to abandon their greatest right, Freedom of speech.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-01-2012, 04:42 PM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

this is a really good dialogue going here, for a change. i get what your saying scrapper, there definitely does need to be some kind of control, but i think we should head in the direction of training for the privilege of owning a firearm.
we already have the hunter ed course, and training course for your pal and rpal, so once you've passed the course, why can't we use our firearms for their intended purpose?
i passed the test for my drivers license, i can drive what i want, where i want, according to my level of testing. i think it would be nice to see a certain amount of firearms training at the grade school level, if for no other reason than to educate kids and their parents on virtues of firearms, as opposed to letting the 6 o'clock news do it for us. 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
  #51  
Old 08-01-2012, 05:08 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. 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 and high capacity magazines 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.
I use my "Assault style" rifles to punch holes in targets at the range. I enjoy doing this, as owning guns is not all just about hunting.

I own hunting rifles, pistols, black powder, shotguns, and assault type rifles. Each has a different purpose, and I use each accordingly. I can understand a restriction of large capacity magazines while hunting, but not at the range.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-01-2012, 05:09 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,839
Default

Quote:
Elk, I am going to respectfully disagree with the tone of this remark. It seems you are essentially saying is that I am entitled to my opinion as long as it is the same as what you precieve to be that of all responsible gun owners. Why would I want to be careful on how I express my opinion.
Why? because expressing your opinion in the way that you have, is in effect voicing support for the anti gun lobby in their cause to end all private ownership of firearms. If you help them to get rid one one type of firearm, you are helping them to eliminate the private ownership of all firearms.

As such,you need to decide whether supporting bans or extremely strict controls on all firearms that look like assault rifles, or bans on high capacity magazines would be worth you yourself giving up the priviledge of owning any type of firearm. Is that is a trade off that you are willing to make? if so, then keep on expressing your opinion as you are, but don't complain when the end result is that no Canadian citizens are allowed to own private firearms in the not so distant future.

I don't own any any firearms that look like assault rifles, or any firearms with tactical accessories, but I will support the people that choose to own those types of firearms, as I want them to support me, in being able to own the types of firearms that I choose to own.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-01-2012, 05:48 PM
gitrdun gitrdun is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: High River, AB
Posts: 10,788
Default

Thanks for your support eh11, as I for one own one of those nasty looking SKS and I can reassure you that no harm will ever come to anyone from it. Yes, it has been guilty of killing several dozen rocks though. Not one year ago, I did not own any pistols. Now I have two. Again, both have resulted in a pile of fun, meeting some likewise minded nice people and one accounts for a medal at the Southern Alberta Games. Again, I can say that no harm or threat will ever come from these two toys.

The mental unstability of some individuals whether they own firearms or not does not guarantee that they won't commit horrendous crimes. Case in point, the nutbar that beheaded an innocent kid on the bus....and he didn't even have an airsoft.

Edit: You want to ban something? ........ go after those stupid warfare, kill'em all, blood spilling games that kids play on their consoles. That to me would be a good place to start.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-01-2012, 05:49 PM
ReayMan ReayMan is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. 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 and high capacity magazines 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.
Agreed 100%
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-01-2012, 05:57 PM
markg markg is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary Area
Posts: 2,377
Default Dear Scrapper

i appreciate your desire to see safer society. I just think banning a particular type of firearm will not achieve this. We have to remember that the most dangerous part of the equation is the individual behind the trigger. We currently have a very robust system that filters out potentialy dangersous firearms owners with the Pal and Rpal system. If you go through this process and are deemed to be capable of owning a firearm then you should be able to own and responsibly use all types. Once again its not the gun that is responsible for a shooting masacre its the person pulling the trigger.

Frankly a 300 win mag in the hands of a nutcase who is a superb marksman on a rooftop is a heckof alot more dangerous then some Rambo wannabe with a .223. I guess we should ban 300 win mags because they can leave a bigger hole then a .223

I used to think like you did up to about 1 1/2 years ago. The arguments put forward by members of this forum changed my point of view. I used to just hunt and target shoot so the "assault ban" didnt effect me. I came to realize that the type of firearm doesnt matter. its about people not guns.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-01-2012, 06:01 PM
Ryry4's Avatar
Ryry4 Ryry4 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Olds, Alberta, Canukistan.
Posts: 5,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReayMan View Post
Agreed 100%
And when they take all the semi-auto's, then the bolt actions, then the single shots, then what?
__________________


Don't argue with a fool, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Life Member of:
Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta
Wild Sheep Foundation
NRA

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-01-2012, 06:02 PM
gitrdun gitrdun is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: High River, AB
Posts: 10,788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReayMan View Post
Agreed 100%
Nobody's gonna get flamed or BBQ'd, this thread need not go to the toilet. But "fun with guns" isn't restricted to the sport of hunting. Take a look at the 3 gun event. It tests your skills with a semi-auto, a pistol and a shotgun. Such an event takes place in Lethbridge. Although I have yet to enter one, simply because I do own the equipment, I plan to one time enter. And no harm will come out of it. As far as restrictions on magazine capacity in semis for the sport of hunting, I'm very much in agreement with you. But this does not necessarily need to imply an all out ban on ownership of the equipment.

Last edited by gitrdun; 08-01-2012 at 06:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-01-2012, 06:12 PM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Probably gonna get BBQ'd for this but here it goes. 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 and high capacity magazines 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.
Who are you to determine what another person NEEDs?

I figure you do not NEED to drive a car or NEED to hunt.


It is this moral superiorty of yours that is wrecking the shooting community
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-01-2012, 06:28 PM
purgatory.sv purgatory.sv is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,296
Default

..

Last edited by purgatory.sv; 08-01-2012 at 06:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-01-2012, 07:59 PM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx View Post
Who are you to determine what another person NEEDs?

I figure you do not NEED to drive a car or NEED to hunt.


It is this moral superiorty of yours that is wrecking the shooting community
He's voicing his opinion, which is obviously shared by a few other posters, including myself. You don't have to agree, nor does he have to agree with you. As I'm sure you know, not all issues are black and white. There is much grey in this world. I am a hunter, and thus have no need of an assault rifle. That doesn't mean that I don't support your right to have one or 100 of them, as long as you have shown yourself to meet the criteria that has been set out for their ownership.

This thread was started in the context of an American tragedy and a possible response by members of their gov't. My opinion, and that's all it is, but it is as valid as yours, or anyone else's, is that access to weapons is too easy in the US. I believe we have achieved a reasonable balance in our country.

My opinion is largely based on having worked in the mental health field, knowing how many people who are in dire need of help, and in many cases supervision, walk our streets. People who are violent, delusional, and capable of reprehensible evil. I am glad they can't order up weapons like that sick young man in Colorado, or any other number of mass murderers in the US in recent decades.

One poster mentioned violent video games as a place to start. I personally would agree with that. However, the problems we have in society are multi-faceted and do not lend themselves to simple solutions, but if banning access to drum magazines is one measure in stopping future mass murders, so be it.

Finally, don't be so naive to think that all gun owners are law abiding, mentally stable citizens. Most of the people I have met at various gun ranges seem to be great people, but I am also not afraid to say here or anywhere else, that I have also met some real wing-nuts at the range who espouse what many would consider to be violent, dangerous, "Timothy McVeigh-esque" views of society.

I vigorously disagree with those who have assert that me saying things like this poses a threat to gun ownership. My opinion is just not that important.

Last edited by sns2; 08-01-2012 at 08:08 PM.
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 01:38 PM.


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