hot off the press

[bluesman]

Question for all on here. I am not trying to pick sides but can someone show documentation of a country that had military type weapons banned from the public first, then had all their guns taken away ? I am not saying it hasnt been done but I have no knowledge of " its been done before ," its just the tip of the iceberg mentality ?"
If it has and you can site it,,then it is a concern. Don't say I heard ...show the actual facts. show the actual history of such. Where there was this progression of one type of gun banned then the next type banned and the next and so on.
Also this is a hunting site and can you show guns on that huge list that are used for hunting in a practical sense ??? Again I started looking at that list and its huge but I didn't see any typical hunting rifles.
I have always thought if you cant get the job done with a rifle that carries only 5 rounds , maybe you shouldn't be hunting.

I'm old school and always thought a good bolt action was all you needed. An old model 12 shotgun took all the geese and ducks I want as well as turkey.

to say someone is naive to believe this is only assault type weapons and the hunting guns are safe is a fairly bold statement . So when you do so, back it up with facts I would say is the way to prove it to that poster.
\its easy to banter and pick on the one guy there, so I say lets see the facts then we do have a legit concern of our future as hunters.

[bluesman]

To emphasize I am not picking sides here, I just like to see the actual facts. If Trudeau has indeed made exemptions for FN with some of these banned guns that is not only ridiculous it is a charter of rights issue. In the fist press conference he stated all Canadians would still be able to use their traditional hunting guns , so I personally wasn't worried about the military type weapons being banned. I am not a Trudeau fan and if there is hidden clauses in this new legislation to take away our hunting rifles I would be first to take every step necessary to stop it .
Again if he has indeed alllowed the FN to have guns that the rest of us Canadians can't its an absolute misscarriage of our rights. I would want to hear his reason for such exemptions. The violence in FN communities is much higher than any others so WTF ?

The one thing I am is old school and do't see a need for a hunting rifle to hold more than 5 rounds.

Lastly I have never been a fan of ANY politician as I have yet to meet one who doesn't have an agenda.

[limit time]

Question for all on here. I am not trying to pick sides but can someone show documentation of a country that had military type weapons banned from the public first, then had all their guns taken away ? I am not saying it hasnt been done but I have no knowledge of " its been done before ," its just the tip of the iceberg mentality ?"
If it has and you can site it,,then it is a concern. Don't say I heard ...show the actual facts. show the actual history of such. Where there was this progression of one type of gun banned then the next type banned and the next and so on.
Also this is a hunting site and can you show guns on that huge list that are used for hunting in a practical sense ??? Again I started looking at that list and its huge but I didn't see any typical hunting rifles.
I have always thought if you cant get the job done with a rifle that carries only 5 rounds , maybe you shouldn't be hunting.

I'm old school and always thought a good bolt action was all you needed. An old model 12 shotgun took all the geese and ducks I want as well as turkey.

to say someone is naive to believe this is only assault type weapons and the hunting guns are safe is a fairly bold statement . So when you do so, back it up with facts I would say is the way to prove it to that poster.
\its easy to banter and pick on the one guy there, so I say lets see the facts then we do have a legit concern of our future as hunters.

The turd said FN can still hunt with them. So? Can or can’t they be hunted with ? Now a question for you since you don’t now much about guns. Semi auto centre fire are limited to 5 rounds as per criminal code so that doesn’t matter as per your 5 round thing.

What actually kills animals ?

A=The look of the gun ?
B= The action of the gun?
C= The caliber of a gun ?

And an honest question to you, would anything change your mind ? If not ? Move along then....

[bcsteve]

To emphasize I am not picking sides here, I just like to see the actual facts. If Trudeau has indeed made exemptions for FN with some of these banned guns that is not only ridiculous it is a charter of rights issue. In the fist press conference he stated all Canadians would still be able to use their traditional hunting guns , so I personally wasn't worried about the military type weapons being banned. I am not a Trudeau fan and if there is hidden clauses in this new legislation to take away our hunting rifles I would be first to take every step necessary to stop it .
Again if he has indeed alllowed the FN to have guns that the rest of us Canadians can't its an absolute misscarriage of our rights. I would want to hear his reason for such exemptions. The violence in FN communities is much higher than any others so WTF ?

The one thing I am is old school and do't see a need for a hunting rifle to hold more than 5 rounds.

Lastly I have never been a fan of ANY politician as I have yet to meet one who doesn't have an agenda.

All the rifles on that list were already limited to 5 rounds, just like your old school hunting rifle. Most of them were chambered in .223 Remington, way less powerful than your old school hunting rifle.

[303savage]

“a man with a gun could irrevocably alter our lives for the worse.”

A man with a gun can protect a life also.

[GreyDog]

Bluesman,
In the past, in those cases where firearms were controlled then confiscated, there was less of a demarcation between military and sporting rifles so that there was never any impetus to go after military-style rifles first. On the other hand, the anti-gun people today can easily make the distinction today and they are making for exactly the reason demonstrated by your post; making this distinction allows them to divide the shooting and hunting community. That they are being successful in doing this is evident when hunters say they don't need those rifles anyway. It is also evident when the make-believe soldiers refer to hunter as "Fudds".
That the rifles on the list are not "traditional" hunting rifles does not mean that they can not be employed as such. In fact, there are a number of AR-15 variants which were designed for the purpose of hunting and they are on the list. The Ruger Mini 14, originally designed as a police weapon, immediately morphed into a semi-auto sporting rifle.
There are also a bunch of rifles on the list which were intended, primarily, as competition rifles and are fired in matches here and in the US. Is it the contention of the guys who don't care that these rifle don't matter because they are NOT used to kill things? If so, that is quite the paradox, is it not?
Ultimately, one has to address the bottom line; this is not about public safety, it is about control. It is about liberty, freedom, and the loss thereof. Why should people be allowed to have on of these rifles? They should be allowed to have them because it does no harm for them to have them. They should be allowed to have them because they are upstanding citizens who are no threat to society. For every military-style assault rifle which is used in a crime (TV shows don't count, by the way), there are a million which are not. More traditional hunting rifles and shotguns are likely to be used in crimes than are AR-15's. That a person owns a Mini 14 does not make him a criminal who must be controlled. It is his behaviour, not his choice of firearms, which makes him a criminal. If a guy is an abuser, a drug dealer, a pimp, a thief, a rapist, then he deserves to be controlled.
When the government seeks to disarm the population, it demonstrates that the government is afraid of and no longer trusts the citizens. It is my belief, if the government cannot trust me, then I cannot trust the government. While I know it may have no place in a discussion regarding Canadian society and law, I feel it is important to understand that this is the ultimate reason for the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution; an armed citizenry formed the final bastion of freedom. It is the ultimate in checks and balances. It says, between the lines, "You can do what you want but, if you abuse the power this paper gives you, we can take this power from you by force because we are granted the means to do so." The founding fathers of the United States trusted their people enough that they were willing to give them this power. The Canadian government has never been quite so confident in the support of it's people!
We, the citizens of western society, have worked diligently to tear down the society we inherited; without regards to the consequences. We have removed the necessity for one to be accountable for his actions, we have removed the pride one should have in being a good citizen, we have enabled and, in some cases, rewarded criminal and deviant behaviour. Now some want make up for this by trying to take away our independence. So it is that we will enable and support drug addicts and the criminal enterprises which profit from them, yet we will seek to control people who are productive, even patriotic, Canadians and who are no threat to their fellow citizens.
I'm going to quit before I get too far off track but I hope you get the point. The point is, we should be able to own these particular rifle because there is no good reason why we should not. In addition, if you believe the anti-gun people will be satisfied with taking away a particular class of rifle and won't bother us anymore, you are living in a dream world. GD

[limit time]

“long guns the problem”
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/canada-firearm-ban-violence-against-women-advocates-1.5553689

[Bollo]

Ultimately, one has to address the bottom line; this is not about public safety, it is about control. It is about liberty, freedom, and the loss thereof. Why should people be allowed to have on of these rifles? They should be allowed to have them because it does no harm for them to have them. They should be allowed to have them because they are upstanding citizens who are no threat to society. For every military-style assault rifle which is used in a crime (TV shows don't count, by the way), there are a million which are not. More traditional hunting rifles and shotguns are likely to be used in crimes than are AR-15's.

I hope there's room for reasonable discussion on here, unlike some other forums. It feels like there is.

Here's the bit I'm pondering - where is the line? Using your argument above, you can make the same case for fully auto firearms. And I don't know how that sits with me - to be honest it makes me a little uncomfortable. On a purely personal note it makes me try and evaluate where that line is for me, and the answer is I'm not sure right now.

To clear up any ambiguity I am 100% against this legislation. It targets a small enough number of people (directly) to be a net political gain while achieving nothing other than a billion dollar hole in the budget. Red meat for the base. It was a cowardly move - I would have had more respect for an attempted blanket ban of handguns and semi centre-fires - at least that way you could at least say there was some integrity behind the move. I'd rather deal with someone who is honest about what they hate, even if I completely disagree with them. Sadly, honesty is not a common currency in politics.

[303savage]

I wonder if Trudope has seen this sight? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

[limit time]

I hope there's room for reasonable discussion on here, unlike some other forums. It feels like there is.

Here's the bit I'm pondering - where is the line? Using your argument above, you can make the same case for fully auto firearms. And I don't know how that sits with me - to be honest it makes me a little uncomfortable. On a purely personal note it makes me try and evaluate where that line is for me, and the answer is I'm not sure right now.

To clear up any ambiguity I am 100% against this legislation. It targets a small enough number of people (directly) to be a net political gain while achieving nothing other than a billion dollar hole in the budget. Red meat for the base. It was a cowardly move - I would have had more respect for an attempted blanket ban of handguns and semi centre-fires - at least that way you could at least say there was some integrity behind the move. I'd rather deal with someone who is honest about what they hate, even if I completely disagree with them. Sadly, honesty is not a common currency in politics.

Since you are the “noob” with 3 posts... did you come to stir the pot ? Do you even hunt (with a gun) or own A gun ? Remember, you’re coming to us not the other way around. ( And what’s the other site you referring to ?