Black Rifles. The Poll! Round three. [Archive]

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 11:40 AM

I agree that education is important walleyes but here's a question for you. How do we educate the public in the differences between a Mini 14 and a Browning BAR ShortTrac Stalker. Both are black, both are semi auto, both are capable of accuratly delivering a suitable projectile in a hunting situation. How do you educate the public on that one?? Truthfully I don't see a difference so other than the Mini 14 looking more menacing, what do you educate the public on???? That's why I keep asking where you draw the line?? Education is a double edged sword my friend. How can you educate someone that the Mini 14 or AR15 needs to be banned but not the BAR when they are in essence the same gun. I'm interested how you'd present that one. What is the education process?? If guns look scary they should be banned but if they don't they shouldn't be??

These are real questions here. Not one person on this site yet has been able to tell me how they'd educate the public on where they'd draw the line between those scary and non scary guns. There is no line. If you ban one semi auto you need to ban them all and I for one don't want to see that happen.

Okotokian

02-26-2007, 12:39 PM

Sheep, given we are talking about public perception, for the purpose of our conversation, I'd say an assault rifle is anything the majority of the public thinks is an assault rifle. I know that's unsatisfying. But I'd say it's black, has a pistol grip, some sort of long magazine on the bottom, looks "military" to the untrained eye.

Wanna add to the confusion? LOL I'd say the rifle looks scarier to the public if the guy holding it is wearing camo fatigues than if he is wearing his blaze upland game vest. :D

Jamie Hunt

02-26-2007, 12:43 PM

Sheep perhaps a way to educate the general public is to see these types of rifles actually being used in Hunting shows and magazines. I think that is the way to keeping access open to these military looking guns. Get respectable people to use them in respectable ways and BAM you have respectable guns.

Jamie

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 12:45 PM

I know what you are saying Ok but lots of rifles have pistol grips and long magazines are already prohibited in Canada. Everyone keeps talking about public perception but how do we know what the public perceives???? I truthfully think the public thinks all guns are scary but that's just my opinion. There are a lot of people speaking on behalf of the public here but I've seen nothing to support what they are saying. Why are we even thinking about giving up more to a group that has brought no pressure on this particular subject. More gun control and less guns...now that I've heard from the public but I have never heard them say...ban some of the scary looking guns and we'll leave you nice gun owners alone. You are fooling yourselves if that's what you think.

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 12:50 PM

Sadly Jamie...Joe public doesn't watch hunting programs or read hunting/shooting magazines and I can't see the mainstream press picking this up. I hunted bears in Russia with an AK47 and have shot many AR15 style rifles in the U.S. and have talked lots about it in print but I sadly doubt that it will do much to educate Joe public. Stopping gun owners from speaking out against legal hunting guns....now that would help.

Jamie Hunt

02-26-2007, 01:13 PM

Sheep. It's all about preception. In the news we have military guys holding Military guns. Therfore the public thinks the only ones who should have these military guns are Military. Get some pic on the nightly news showing hunters with military style guns and life will start to get better. It all has to start some where.

Jamie

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 01:16 PM

Totally agreed Jamie but how do you do that???? Not like the mainstream media is anxious to show hunting.

Jamie Hunt

02-26-2007, 01:28 PM

Sheep. Its shown on the news. Perhaps not near enough but at least its there. I would guess you will see more of the Jumbo thing show up on one of the major news stations eventually. Especially if they have a slow news week.
In order to make this work you have to showcase these rifles at every chance. It will take time, but it will work. For the most part the public are just sheep and they listen to whatever the talking heads on TV tell them.
Just a few thoughts anyhow

Jamie

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 01:38 PM

Like I said James...totally agree with you but after beating my head on that mainsteam media wall for nearly 20 years, my head is getting sore. Beat away if you like though, I'd support you. You can bet the mainstream media will certainly pick up a negative story in a hurry though.

???

02-26-2007, 02:37 PM

Hear we go again,, its just going to start all over again...

Its going to start all over again becasue the debate was never finished. Unfortunately, we have a mod or two here that like to play God and tell the rest of us when a debate is over.

Someboby please, PLEASE get rid of lisundance as a mod. I am sure he is a wonderful person and ethical hunter, but he has no business being a mod on this board.

Okotokian

02-26-2007, 02:41 PM

yeah, you are right. Here is what lilsundance said on the "The Black Gun Three" chain:

I think Osterb posted a pretty good poll there. Check it out and see what you think.

Yup, the guy is really a biased, closed-minded menace wanting to shut down all discussion, for sure. :lol

Okoto

02-26-2007, 03:05 PM

"Yup, the guy is really a biased, closed-minded menace wanting to shut down all discussion, for sure. "

I dont think so he is just telling you like it is and alot of you dont like it .Its good that some that come on this board dont sugar Coat nothing Good for you Oster .;)

Okotokian

02-26-2007, 03:21 PM

Nationwide, it was SARCASM.... I thought he was fine too.

walleyes

02-26-2007, 03:31 PM

Sheep with all do respect and I do mean that,, I do have respect for anyone that has the balls to leave main stream work and make a living out of something we all love and enjoy like the great outdoors. It has to take a lot of nerve and perseverance man and good luck. But please don't make you're self out to be so naive as to sit here and tell me you honestly can't see the difference between a AR rifle and a sporting rifle o.k. because I know you aren't that blind. Now I know you are in the business and need you're sponsors and you have seen what speaking you're true feelings can do for you as in he case of Jim Zumbo,, so I'm sorry but I can not sit here and have an honest debate with you on this matter because no matter what you will have a biased opinion. And that is fine I do understand and please don't take this offensive it's just the way it is...

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 03:42 PM

I ask again Walleyes...where is the line then....what rifle seperates other semi autos from sporting rifles??? And I ask the question with all due respect but I would like an answer. What rifles are you happy to give up to the antis and which ones do you want to keep???? There has to be a line if you are willing to give up some. It seems a pretty simple question but no one can answer it. Why is that??

Blakeinator2

02-26-2007, 04:10 PM

Wanna see where a ton of these 'black rifles' are common as the day is long?

predatormasters.com

The predator callers and varmint hunters are putting them to great use. Wish we had the same access to the same guns.

If you consider calling coyotes (a very fast growing sport) then you can see just how perfectly taylored these 'black guns' might be for that application. Your talking small, fast critters that often come in multiples (most i've had come in on me is 5....with a few 3's and many pairs).

I relegate myself to usually just scoring one at a time so i concentrate hardest on the first one but i bet i could pick off a few doubles with a tool more suited to that type of action. Its not that i don't try for the doubles as i have emptied my bolt guns twice on certain stands in the open...and often get more than one shot off...hate it when they run left to right...can't seem to get the leads right. Maybe the auto-loader won't help me that much but i bet there a few instances a year where it would make all the difference. I know i'd sure like access to more choices on moa capable semi-auto's.

Just another tool is all.

B

walleyes

02-26-2007, 04:11 PM

Again here we go..
No one and I mean no one on this site has said a rifle just because it is black is offensive,, what a few of us are trying to say is there are certain styles and we all know which ones they are,, as in the AR style the Uzi style the BMG style rifle are specific designed rifles, not for hunting,, and let me ask you this,, if you don't know the difference?? why are we even having this conversation"?? why can you all pick out what style we are talking about and yet play dumb in the end.. I know why because we all know there is a difference that's why!!!!!!!

Again,, and hear me out,, again we say,, did you all hear!!!! again we say,, hey !!! did you hear what I am saying,, we should all be aloud to own these guns,, "if" we have proven our selves worthy of owning them ,, take them out to the local range and do what we all know they were DESIGNED to do,,(and if you want as we all see them all doing in the promos in the magazines,, shoot at human targets),,, shoot all day long if that is what you like...

But please don't ever confuse an outdoors man with a shooter !!!! because boys there is no reason for an outdoors man to own one of these guns,, I have never seen a true woodsman pack one and I never will.. Call you're self what you will,, sell you're self as what you will,, but don't confuse the two,, we are a different species.. Outdoorsman harvest shooters shoot,, (what ever they can).

I am a woodsman not a shooter.........

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 04:27 PM

Like I said...no one can answer my question.......but I do take offense to you saying I'm not a true outdoorsman. But I guess by your definition I'm not. I don't harvest game...I shoot and kill it. Farmers harvest crops!

The BMG-style rifle??? So now bolt actions are offensive?? You do realize the BMG is a calibre...right?

I know where I'm willing to draw the line...why can't you???? I'll guarantee I know more about these rifles than you walleyes and I'll guarantee I've shot more and AR style rifles are indeed fine rifles for many hunting applications.

BTW...woodsmen use axes and with an attitude like yours, that's all we may be left with soon!

But not to let you derail this important topic walleyes...where do you draw the line. What semis are acceptable and which ones aren't??? Which bolt actions are acceptable and which ones aren't? I have my opinion, I'd like to hear yours. And please, it's a simple question so a simple answer would be nice.

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 05:44 PM

Never implied anything different walleyes.

Blakeinator2

02-26-2007, 05:45 PM

Walleyes, your gonna judge a man based on his tool? Do you judge them the same based on brand of truck...or for heavensake....what if they don't even drive a truck?:eek

You really think we don't know 'what guns' your talking about here? We DO know...the point your having trouble with is...to many of us....a gun is a gun...we don't place near as much emphasis on what it looks like as you apparently do.

A gun is designed to shoot bullets and we design many bullets to kill the kind of game we choose to hunt...in reality there is no diff in the tool.

Guess your in the 'crossbows are poachers weapons' crowd too eh?;) :lol

Get with the times man...at least with your line of thinking. Its not like you'll see these types of guns your talking about anytime soon in this country so relax and have a good time with the subject.

I can well imagine that when crossbows were first seen in provinces/states they are now commonplace....that alot of peoples reactions would have been similar to if they see some of these 'black guns' being used for hunting.

Whats the diff?

Just a lack of education is all.

This is another perfectly good example of some excellent creation we humans build...and yet somehow we treat it like the anti-christ simply because of how it looks?

Was camo invented for hunting or did we adapt it from the military? Who was wearing camo first????? Its okay to go into the bush looking like we're part of the armed forces only if we don't carry a gun that looks similar. Talk about double standards.;) :lol

B

walleyes

02-26-2007, 05:49 PM

BTW...woodsmen use axes

I would survive quite fine with these tools thank you very much..... I actually do it for fun quite often just to keep sharp...( no pun intended )

Lil

02-26-2007, 06:58 PM

I thought he was fine

Really? Well, here is what he had to say on the ORIGINAL thread:

I think it has run its course

I guess as long as you don't mind being told what to think and being told when your turn to talk is over...then yeah, he is just fine.........:o :o

Grizzly Adams

02-26-2007, 07:16 PM

I guess it depends on how you define "Shooting Sports". Most of the so called black rifles aren't really designed for hunting, but they're a blast to shoot. I don't see anything wrong with that. Everything is relative and there people out there, who get offended by the stupidest things. One little feature that was deemed objectional by the anti-gun crowd was the provision for a bayonet. I can't remember any articles in the newspaper where some crazed maniac made a bayonet charge into a crowd .:rollin
Grizz

Brady

02-26-2007, 07:29 PM

Redneck Hunter, I don't really understand what this has to do with this poll. If you have a beef with lilsundance, feel free to drop him a PM and you can air out your dirty laundry with him that way. Of course that would require you having an ezboard account. That thread had run its course, and like 'lil said, was getting far too personal by the combatants. 'Nuff said.

osterb

02-26-2007, 08:01 PM

And here is just a question but why are they called AR rifles the A stands for assault what is it people want to go and assault,,

The designation "AR"15 stands for Armalite model 15 which is the company that invented and introduced the AR10 and AR15. "assault rifle" is a common misinterpretation and rumor spawned by ignorant folk.

I just don't get it.. Why do people feel the need to own something designed for assaulting something ??
Because guns don't "assault" animals. :o You're basing your argument on emotions and interpretations. There is no functional difference between a Browning BAR and an AR10 but one looks slightly more menacing. All guns were initially designed to kill people so they're all bad. Remember that.

Just because it was made doesn't mean you have to own it

That's a pretty rediculous statement. Think about that for a second. S.U.V's, swimming pools etc. are all things that claim more fatalities than guns do.

Leave it in the hands of the people it was designed for. Like our military and peace officers...

So hand in every rifle you own. They were all originally designed for killing people. Muskets to black powders to rifled barrels. They all evolved in the face of war making them all "inherently evil". It's funny. I argue with someone who wants an outright ban on guns. He uses the same analogy. Since guns were designed for killing they're inherently bad. They can't be used for anything else. The remington 700 is the most widely used rifle by Law enforcement in north America as with the Remington 870. Since the 700 and 870 are used by law enforcement they shouldn't be in the hands of civillians according to your analogy. That's alot of rifles and shotguns.

Your thoughts are awfully close with those of Allan Rock. Only the Military and police should have guns.....Freedom to fascism....

But wait, as long as you have your guns you'll be happy. Because your guns aren't dangerous and primarily meant to have hot gases expand and send a piece of lead at supersonic speeds.

http://www.csmetall-werkes.com/pics/krinker_plinker_image.jpg

Riddle me this, is this rifle designed for rabbit hunting or designed for assaulting people?

lilsundance

02-26-2007, 09:20 PM

Redneck wasn't 12 pages enough for you to post in??? I noticed you never made one post in it so you obviously didn't have anything to contribute to this topic. If you did and I had already closed it, then you could have posted it here in the new thread. Also I am not here to please you nor am I going to try to.
For the rest of you guys posting in this I appologize for the interuption. Lets try to keep this from going around and around and perhaps some more good Ideas will come out of it.

One thing I think has been touched on a bit is that people think guns designed for specific reasons( military) should be kept for that specific reason. I disagree, as if that was the case we probably wouldn't have any firearms at all. Firearms were originaly designed and improvements made to them for military use. It was the private citizen that saw advantages to using firearms for hunting. In this day and age with improvements being made why wouldn't we still take advantage of those improvements. Shooting sports as well are evolving with some revolving around the use of these "black rifles". As a hunter and person who likes to shoot I see no reason why these rifles should be excluded. Informing the public that these guns are no more dangerous than a "so called normal" rifle is going to be a chore I agree. Especially when you have an overselous media reporter who ignores the facts and says what he thinks people want to hear. All in the hopes of getting an award or a better job.

osterb

02-26-2007, 09:31 PM

Day pointed out that conventional hunting rifles are just as lethal if not more than most semi auto's in defense of a ban being useless.

Finally a politician that at least comprehends the basics.

Tree Guy

02-26-2007, 09:49 PM

osterb, thanks for the support. I spent the day trying to come up with a good poll question when an awful thought entered my head. If I put a poll question up on this subject, and two weeks later the headline's in the Toronto Star read, '56.9% of hunters themselves dislike black-guns!!!' My end decision when I arrived home was to probably not post a poll. Thanks again for your support, but I truely hope it wasn't in haste.

walleyes

02-26-2007, 09:50 PM

osterb.... those guns would not be aloud in my yard,, in my house or in a vehicle going hunting with me ... You hit the nail on the head as far as were do we call the line,, you just gave us a picture,,, call me want you want but I have different opinion on what a HUNTER is,,, keep going down you're road we will see who wins in the end...

Again there are shooters and there are hunters anyone that would own a gun such as those,, in "my" view is not a hunter but a shooter.. So go ahead shoot all you want into the wind don't class you're self with me,, I am a hunter,, we live in a different world..

209x50cal

02-26-2007, 10:18 PM

Does anybody else think that something is out of kilter when someone would ban a gun he can't identify? No rhyme nor reason as far as action or caliber, just how it looks!?! I think we are in the twilight zone here fellows!

walleyes

02-26-2007, 10:19 PM

Some of us respect those around us and their point of view,, others think they are the only ones on the planet....

Damn rights I couldn't identify those guns and I know a fair bit about guns,,, what the hell guys its what we are saying....

Rackmastr

02-26-2007, 10:20 PM

Some of the comments here are ridiculous......

Nothing wrong with a good debate, but when I hear some guy tell others they arent hunters because they hunt with a different type rifle, it just sounds sick.

Walleyes, how would you feel if I told you I didnt think you were a hunter because you didnt bowhunt? That I think all rifle hunters are idiots and guns were meant to kill eachother (bow too, ironically) and that guns should be left with police and military. Anyone who doesnt bowhunt is just a shooter and not a true hunter.....

Gee....sounds great Walleyes....wake up.

Your comments go BEYOND ignorant....

Debates are great, and some members have at least made some decent arguments, but thats just insane man...

Some of us respect those around us and their point of veiw,, others think they are the only ones on the planet....

So your point of view about anyone owning a black gun and not being a 'hunter' is just you respecting others points of views?? C'mon....listen to what you're saying.

This is by no means an attack, merely pointing out the fact that you're pretty much drawing a line in the sand and TELLING people who is a hunter and who is not.....lol

Tree Guy

02-26-2007, 10:52 PM

redneck unregistered user. As a member of the so-called 'Black Gun Three' and a contributer to the thread I would like to officially voice my support for lilsundance's decision to lock the thread. You didn't contribute one post and yet you critize him? I'm guessing you and 209X50cal are friends or long-lost brothers. Lilsundance was absolutly correct in locking it down, that thread was done, primarily due to it getting personal.

M70

02-26-2007, 10:55 PM

Osterb,

If I'm not mistaken those are Ruger 10/22 kits. The skin is a little more exotic but the heart is the same. 4X scope on one of those and an afternoon to shoot gophers to help out my farmer friends......

jrs

02-26-2007, 11:00 PM

Wow!! I missed out on about ten pages of gun debate. I never noticed how many theads were going till right now. Osterb sold me a bit on those units in past discussions. I have a ruger ranch rifle which pretty much could be thrown in the group, can't hit the side of a barn at 50 yards even with the money i put in to it but it sure doesn't take long to empty the clip. I wouldn't hunt with one but why judge guys that do? We don't want to split up the hunting community any more. Some good points though guys. I'm sure if i had a accurate unit i'd at least take it out for gophers or starlings or something. Or to the range and shoot 3D or something like that, shootings a big part of hunting.......

Brady

02-26-2007, 11:01 PM

Again there are shooters and there are hunters anyone that would own a gun such as those,, in "my" view is not a hunter but a shooter

Wow :eek :eek
Sorry walleyes, but with comments like that, I think we as a group, are in worse shape then I thought. There is no place for stereotyping like that, and IMHO, is a very damaging statement.

Brady

02-26-2007, 11:23 PM

Walleyes, I respect your opinion, but I am just saying that I don't think it is right to judge like that. Unless I am not reading into what you wrote there correctly.....:rolleyes :rolleyes

Tree Guy

02-26-2007, 11:25 PM

Boys, settle down or we're going to get locked down again. This one is too important to lose.

I've got a question for everyone. Do you think that maybe our problem is that we are trying to unite a ununitable group? We fight over makes, models, calibres, bait, rivers, lakes, trucks, quads, dogs, reels, rods, cammo, stands, regs, liberals, global warming, who's wife is uglier, etc,etc........... Squabble, squabble, squabble. We're like a bunch of old ladies here!

Here's the problem, we have been trying to argue to the public that a gun is a gun. We have been TOO sucessful at this, and the result is that now the general public has bought in. A gun is a gun, Browning A-Bolt, AK-47, Cooey single shot .22, UZI. A gun is a gun. We won, and the anti's let us, do you not see this?

To the public there are two types of guns. The ones that kill animals, and the ones that kill humans. That is why we are having this debate.

walleyes

02-26-2007, 11:33 PM

Again,, guys I'm sorry but I am getting way off topic and am getting way to caught up in the heat of discussion .. I have to back down and back away.. I have written 3 posts and deleted them its time I go to bed...

I think we all can agree this is one hell of a topic and it obviously deserves a better brain than mine..

I'm sorry but again I must for my own good shut my mouth and say enough is enough............

209x50cal

02-26-2007, 11:44 PM

I'm not sure that unity is even needed what it comes down to is respect. If you don't like AR style guns fine but respect those that do and at a minimum mind your own business an leave them alone. Why people have to go make trouble for other people I have no idea.

kanonfodder

02-26-2007, 11:51 PM

Cmon you can't really be that obtuse can you? I will clarify what I can, I am talking about guns that have the appearence of machine and/or tactical weapons, that is to say long clips, short barelled type weapons. Sure it's a generality I understand that, but take yourself and put it into a city dweller in downtown big city whose only connection with guns is what he sees on nightly news and in movies, you may know it's a semi auto .22 calibre replica used for varmits, what do you suppose that person sees. That is MY POINT. that's it end of story, sure it's not my fault or yours joe average is uneducated about guns but like I said I wish I had an easy solution but to say to hell with what the public thinks, knows or doesn't know is being terribily short-sighted

sheep hunter

02-26-2007, 11:52 PM

Short barreled...long clip rifles are already restricted so why are we having this conversation. You are going to say to the government, go ahead and ban all scary looking guns..... You have way more confidence in the government than me. I never thought you were such a puppet to public perception. Who is crying for this anyhow and what are we going to gain giving it up to them? But I ask again, at what point do you personally think guns are not scary looking any more and does that match with public perception? Even you must be able to see the folly in this path you are going down. You are opening up the door for the gvernment to outlaw any gun that looks scary to the public. Do you really think there are guns that don't.

Tell me this, which looks scarier...a guy in full fatigues sporting a BAR or a guy in a tweed hunting jacket with an AR15. I bet most would pick the guy in camo fatigues. If that doresn't make you think you don't know much about public perception.

As for tactical weapons...do you have any clue what the favourite rifle of snipers is. That sounds like a pretty tactical weapon to me yet it is also one of the most popular hunting bolt actions. Be careful what box you open my friend as you may never be able to close it.

kanonfodder

02-27-2007, 12:04 AM

Respect is allowing another poster his say without belittling his/her position or character. According to the poll about a third of people on this board don't share your opinion so if we use this as a template out of 2000 members 600 disagree with black guns in some fashion. don't you think that's significant enough to warrant some discussion? With the exception of my one comment I have yet to see anyone publicy say we should ban them completly yet according to the poll numbers some members feel that way. I don't see discussion as "making trouble" for anyone here.
Blake you made some interesting points I believe crossbows were around long before gunpowder was and pretty sure primitive hunters stuck leaves and sticks on themselves to camoflauge themselves whilst hunting for food.
Osterb, very informative as always but surely you can see how the average non gun owner would look at those pics and see "assault rifle" right or wrong that's what they'd probably see, put winchester lever action next to them and ask which should be hunted with...bet you can guess what most would say...again right or wrong thats what we have to deal with...if I had easy solutions I would sell em...

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 12:05 AM

Sheep, I will try to give you an honest answer as to where I draw the line.

I'm willing do whatever it takes to keep me hunting, my kids hunting, my grandkids hunting, and US hunting, etc, etc...... At one time that ment sending my usual check into the NRA et al. Not anymore. I'm tired of the same-old-same-old.

If that means sacraificing SOME guns that are not designed for hunting and that the vast majority of us will never get a chance to shoot let alone own, then so be it. We are having guns restricted upward not downward, meaning a lever-action .30-.30 is left alone, while the focus is being put on the spiffy looking assult look-alikes that make the news. The public and political focucs is on those guns that translates down to our guns.

Maybe its time to take the manufacture's to task. What we all own now for rifles (levers, bolts, pumps and semis) are regulated and considered realitively ok. We never had these debates or public perception problems until 'black guns' came on the scene. Once again, school shootings, CBC, CNN... The two go hand in hand. Do you not feel that without 'black guns', we would not be facing mounting pressure by the public to put a ban on semi-autos? Go back to the last page of the locked thread and read bignose's first post about Dunblane Scotland. We have to learn from that.

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 12:19 AM

209, I agree with you in regards of unity and respect. Here's a question (a serious question, not being smart assed). Do you think it is time for us to abandon the NRA model of united gun owners and try to create a 'firewall' between our two groups; shooters and hunters? Maybe if we can seperate the users of guns that are percieved as animal killers and the guns that are percieved as people killers, we can create two highly focused and united fronts with enough cross-over members to work together strongly as a two prong attack versus a bickering and diverse single prong approach?

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 12:19 AM

Black guns have been around for ages my friend and the only problem seems to be on this board. Who is that you are making this deal with to give up guns so you can keep owning others. I'd love to see that contract. I am totally unaware of an anti black gun lobby in this country other than on this site but feel free to enlighten me. There are loads of anti gun lobbies but just aimed at black guns...come on.

You keep saying that if we give some up we'll be able to keep the others...show me some proof man! I'm all for making a deal but just not with the devil or in your case a totally unknown entity.

Can't you see the folly in what you say. There is a perceived problem in your mind and a couple others here and you figure the only solution is to make a deal with an imaginary power to give something up with no guarantee to receive anything in return. Come on man...see the light.

Show me some facts, some figures, some guarantees....not vague statements about perceived problems with no solutions. I ask again, when will you say to the public that you aren't willing to give up any more guns? What gun is the breaking point. I can tell you mine so please share yours with me. When are guns no longer offensive. There are bolt actions and pumps used as military/tactical weapons......where does it end. When does this public of yours quit perceiving that they are no longer scared. What gun are they comfortable with???????

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 12:20 AM

Kanon, this discussion is far from theoretical and I'm talking about this country. You keep saying you are willing to give up some guns so we can keep others. Who are you making this deal with and at what point are you not willing to give up any more. It's a pretty simple question that I'd love to hear an answer to. At least when I offer an opinion I have an answer to back it up. You don't seem to have one...what's up with that???? Make a point and I'll quit ignoring it.

209x50cal

02-27-2007, 12:23 AM

So what are we discussing Kannon? Some people are adamant that certain guns need control but can't even answer the most basic question on what criteria to use for distinction.
Come on if you really want someone to take you serious you have to have a better description than "you know what guns we are talking about" Get real here and give us some hard and fast stats, like make and models and why they fall on the wrong side of your line.

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 12:31 AM

So go ahead shoot all you want into the wind don't class you're self with me,, I am a hunter,, we live in a different world..

Rest assured walleyes, I'd never class myself with you!!!!

As for the others (kannon, tree) where is the line? At what gun do you say enough is enough. Please give me an example. There is a lot of vague talk but when the goverment starts banning guns you can bet they will be specific, doing it one model at a time. They've already started down that road. At what point do you say enough is enough. What firearm is your breaking point????? Please enlighten me. I've asked this question till I'm blue in the face but no one has yet attempted an answer. Could it be you truly yhave no idea what you are talking about. I anxiously await your answer. And please don't insult my intelligence with a vague answer like assault-style rifles as that means nothing. When will you say enough is enough? How many guns are you willing to let the government take away??? Please answer, I'm waiting. This is the most important question in this debate and I'm very anxious to hear your opinion.

kanonfodder

02-27-2007, 01:08 AM

LOL Sheep, Im just responding to a question asked, this whole discussion is theoretical at this point is it not? We are debating an action that took part in another country.How would you have never thought I could be a puppet of public perception? You have never met me. You have though shown your willingness to ignore points I have made, insult me and belittle my position. I have read your stuff for years and would have thought you would be able to put yourself into the publics shoes in this debate. I have never said I would like the government to ban all scary guns all I have done is profess an understanding on why the government could bow to public pressure and do so. What I find scary is outdoorsmen with no sense of empathy.

kanonfodder

02-27-2007, 01:31 AM

You keep saying that if we give some up we'll be able to keep the others...show me some proof man! I'm all for making a deal but just not with the devil or in your case a totally unknown entity.
I made that one statement in regards to an if proposition once not several times as you claim once, but this is the point you choose to fixate on...lol...where have I said there is an anti black gun lobby? There is no percieved problem except in your mind sheep, as I said this whole debate is theoretical at this time....I have chosen to understand where the publics viewpoint may be, you and yours are beating their collective chests.did you happen to notice the poll a third of members disagree with you in some fashion, once again if that % held over 600 outdoorsmen would be wrong? As for giving up any guns I have stated over again that if you own em and use em according to the law have at 'er, when will the public stop being scared probably never, I worry more about being stabbed than I ever worry about being shot and unlike most Canadians I have been on the bad side of BOTH
I realize it's no use trying to get you to even pay attention to any other viewpoint but the one you feverantly believe and that's fine kudos on being passionate, I try for a broader viewpoint you may consider naive or foolish but at the end of the day we both do what we feel is right as is our right no?

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 01:46 AM

Sheep, there is probably NO gun the gen-pop is comfortable with. You keep ranting on about getting an answer out of us, and I tried to give you one, like it or not. You basically chose to ignore it. I realize that in your position you cannot comment on the responsibility of the manufactures, but for the rest of us, we can, and I for one think that they are purposefully exploiting us all to generate sales, keep the fight going and bring free exposure to their products. They know full well that there will never be confiscation in Canada, and they know that the right to bear arms is written into the American constitution. Free publicity is free publicity. Sheep, please don't respond to this one, I for one do not want to be responsible for getting you 'Zumboed'.

osterb

02-27-2007, 05:46 AM

If that means sacraificing SOME guns that are not designed for hunting and that the vast majority of us will never get a chance to shoot let alone own, then so be it.

And it's this attitude that's going to flush us down the drain. Divide and conquer. You really think they're going to leave your guns alone? When "black rifles" are banned someone will go into a school with a repeater 94, then that'll be gone.

We are having guns restricted upward not downward, meaning a lever-action .30-.30 is left alone, while the focus is being put on the spiffy looking assult look-alikes that make the news.

Oh really? From a recent article.

Police fear two high-powered guns stolen last week from a London home are in the hands of criminals.

In a classic example of what London police say they see over and over again, four firearms stolen during a Valentine's Day break-in on Dundas Street quickly made their way onto the street, ready to be used or sold illegally.

Police seized two of the guns -- high-powered assault rifles, one capable of shooting up to five rounds in rapid succession -- Tuesday. Two others, a bolt-action rifle and 12-gauge shotgun, remain missing.

"There are two more firearms out there that are extremely high-powered that I'm confident are in our city and we have to get them off our street," said police Chief Murray Faulkner.

"These are in the hands of criminals and they will turn up either involved in a robbery or used as intimidation or protection for drug dealers."

The guns, typically used by hunters, were registered and properly stored when they were reported stolen Feb. 14. A crossbow was also taken.

One was a mini 14, the other was a SINGLE SHOT remington XR100 . The media doesnt care. They'll call a winchester 1300 a sawed off shotgun.

The public and political focucs is on those guns that translates down to our guns.

"I've got my guns, screw the rest of you"

Maybe its time to take the manufacture's to task. What we all own now for rifles (levers, bolts, pumps and semis) are regulated and considered realitively ok. We never had these debates or public perception problems until 'black guns' came on the scene.

How long have you been around? Black rifles used to be regularly hunted with. FN fals, AR15's, HK 91, 93's used to be fluently hunted with. It wasn't until politicians realized guns are easy political points.

Once again, school shootings, CBC, CNN... The two go hand in hand. Do you not feel that without 'black guns', we would not be facing mounting pressure by the public to put a ban on semi-autos? Go back to the last page of the locked thread and read bignose's first post about Dunblane Scotland. We have to learn from that.

Had the dawson shooting been done with a hunting rifle you'd have seen more body bags. The fact he used a pistol carbine is the reason more people aren't dead and I'm happy for that. Had he walked in there with a hunting caliber rifle people would have died in numbers.

209x50cal

02-27-2007, 08:36 AM

No matter how you want to deny you are anti gun. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't ban some guns and be pro-gun.
Deny all you want you are only fooling yourself the rest of us are see you for what you are.
You guys are so terribly unaware of what you are talking about or are just making the silly statements up as you go so just FYI, uzi's, Mach 10's and Tech 9s the choice of TO gang bangers are NOT legal in Canada.
You guys truly amaze me.

Rackmastr

02-27-2007, 08:50 AM

You guys truly amaze me.

Thats for sure.....no matter how much I try and read the posts of some of these guys, it amazes me how anti-gun they sound and how the comments are the exact ones used as anti hunters and anti-firearms crew. Its funny that someone who SAYS they support gun ownership could say such things and allow the rights of other firearms owners to be taken away.

When you guys ACTUALLY decide where you'd like to draw the line (anything that YOU own is good, but anything else scary is bad is a bit vague still) then maybe you'll understand the damage that your type is doing.

I think PETA and the Brady organization are accepting applications....you're already helping with their work....might as well join up.

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 10:30 AM

Easy boys, I now see Kanon's point....he thinks this is all theoretical and a game. He's likely too young to remember how real draconian gun laws came into place and innocent hunters either had their guns snatched from them or were told they were now restricted and they could no longer hunt with them.

That's why we don't see this as theoretical kanon...it's happened before and is happening now. You keep saying that I can't see your point kanon and that's because you haven't made one. Start talking about the real world and what's going on in this country right now and you may change your mind. This is not theoretical...this is real!

Don't worry about Zumboing me tree. I know where I stand and I'm passionate about it and will keep speaking up about it. If some manufacturers or media outlets don't like it...screw them but I'm very selective in with whom I work and I'd venture a guess we are all on the same side.

This isn't a messageboard game kannon....it's something real that affects all gun owners and that's why everyone is so riled up at your stance. It comes across very anti gun. And give up on this kankaroo poll as adding credence to your argument...it means absolutely nothing. You are grasping at straws if it is your best defence.

Anyhow kanon, I used to think you were one of the more stand up guy on this board but the further you get down this road the more it makes me question your motives. Just becareful what lies at the end of that road my friend. There are no anti black gun people but there are lots of anti gun people and you are getting awfully close to their camp.

Blakeinator2

02-27-2007, 10:36 AM

Wow, this one added up fast. I see Walleyes has bowed out...anyhow, saw a few things i wanted to add a couple cents too. One was 'guns designed for hunting vs killing people' or something along those lines.

If it helps anyone to see it better....guns were designed to shoot bullets. How bout that. And yeah...isn't it nice that they were all designed to originally to kill people. We take a marvelous tool and adapt it to hunting...no big deal. Who cares what it looks like.

Remember when the bow hunters and gun hunters used to squable at each other....this is same thing...only its gun guys vs gun guys....great.

Another point made was 'hunters vs shooters'....every one of us is a bit of both...we all have different percentages of either in us but still same thing. Some guys might spend 90% of their time at the ranges etc. and only 10% in the field and vice versa. Its all good, the more people doing both imo...the better.

Time for hugs and kisses guys(okay...maybe just hugs...or handshakes:o :b )..we're all on same team and need to act that way. Gotta stick up for the bowhunters, gotta stick up for the bear hunters, the hound hunters, the black gun guys...the crossbow guys....gotta stick up for all of our sports/tools etc. We'll keep it all alot longer. Just because we might not fancy some of our sports etc. doesn't mean we can write it off and in ignorance side with the anti's to help them ban it. As it will be the things you like to do next on their list.

B

kanonfodder

02-27-2007, 11:26 AM

Really it's happening right now? I must have missed Stockewll Day's big announcement, which guns are now banned and/or restricted? I must have nodded off as we youngsters need our sleep. I don't ever recall saying this is a game and I have never professed to be anti-gun. But once again others will pigeon toe me and any others who diasagree with our views into the anti camp....lol ... as for the poll meh....it makes a valid point..it's not MY BUDDIES....it's registered users on this board involved in the outdoors ....are you saying their opinions don't matter??????

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 11:27 AM

All I can say kanon is that it must be nice to live in your world as reality never enters it. The facts are that guns have been confiscated in this country.....guns have been restricted and you can bet your last dollar that the government will try again. If not this one....then another one. As for the poll...give me a freaking break.....it's proving my point but I'm still not going to use it as proof. You can vote multiple times on it.....and it has no credibility. Carefully moderated polls are suspect at best...this one means absolutely nothing. Oh ya, your world again. The opinions that matter on this board are those that offer educated ones in the threads not on some kangaroo poll.

You are a very poor listener that constantly jumps to conclusions kanon. Sitting back and listening before opening your mouth would serve you well. But then it's easier to put words in people's mouths and spout wild acqusations than to educate yourself isn't it? Many of your comments on this thread and numerous others recently have showed just how little you actually know and shouting louder doesn't mask your ignorance. There is a whole world of information out there, maybe you should check into a bit of it. Did you happen to look up that document called the constitution yet? You know the one you said Canada didn't have. Have you checked into what rifles snipers use? Have you looked into what rifles have already been restricted? I doubt it but a little education sure would help you my friend. As I said, shouting louder does little to shroud your ignorance of the subjects being discussed.

Do some research my friend, educate yourself and you might just realize that the threats are real and if it wasn't for people being willing to stand up and be counted, we'd be losing more than we already have. I'd say the IMHA is a classic example. I wonder what would have happened if everyone would have been as apathetic as you are on the gun issue on that one. Oh ya, we'd still have it. Wake up man, you are trying to drag us all down with you. This isn't theoretical my friend it real and it's happening.....the government has confiscated and restricted guns and won't stop if we lie down or in your case help them. That's why I keep asking where you will draw the line. This is real...this is happening....where will you draw the line and say enough!!!!!!! I've said enough right now!

kanonfodder

02-27-2007, 11:55 AM

It is nice in my world thanx for your concern, hows the reality in yours Sheep? I live in the real world where unfortunatly public perception IS a strong influence, public perception is what shapes, liquor laws, smoking bylaws, caused the pit bull ban, deams which ads or shows are offensive, and enters every aspect of our lives thru polls, focus groups etc. I may not like it but that's how it is, so me trying to understand another prospective may be offensive to you and put me on the "them" side but that's just your perception and I guess starting with you I will be less influenced by the publics perception.......:D have a great day all

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 11:56 AM

And what's wrong with resisting public perception and trying to educate the public as to the facts rather than bowing to their illconceived notions? If the public has a point based on facts rather than emotion, then public pressure will likely rule but when the public is basing their perception on misinformation, lies and lack of information, then I think it's time to stand up to public perception and say "NO, you don't have the whole story."

Be a sheep if you like my friend but public perception is based on lies and misinformation when it comes to firearms so no, I won't bow to it. I'll do everything in my power to get the truth out there just as I did with the IMHA. Gee, wonder what would have happened if we'd bowed to public perception on that one. Oh ya, the agreement would still be in place.

You've still never told me what giving into this perceived public perception of black guns will accomplish. I'd love an answer to it or are you just throwing your hands in the air and saying" it doesn't affect me so who cares?" One day it will affect you. If you think giving in will gain gun owners anything you are sadly mistaken. A week after the bans there will be a new target and complient kanon will be once again lumped in with the nasty gun owners.

Scott N

02-27-2007, 12:27 PM

kanonfodder, I haven't been involved in this thread but I wanted to add something to it.

After Dawson College, the government was under pressure to do something about these unfortunate occurrences. There was a lot of rumours going around afterwards that the government was considering an all out ban on all semi-autos. Not just the so called black guns and handguns, but ALL semi autos. And while this was a rumour, a lot of people inside the firearms community in Canada knew that there was at least some substance to it.

And if you don't believe that, Peter Mckay is on the record stating that perhaps some guns don't have any place in Canadian society, and he was talking about semi-auto hunting guns.

All I'm saying is that all gun owners need to stick together. Once they start banning certain guns, they won't stop there.

HUNTNUT

02-27-2007, 02:04 PM

Some people here want to know where the line is or what happens when that line is crossed. In my opion we crossed that line when some idiot came up with making the weapons that are now prohibited-(unless you are grandfathered) unavailable to the rest of us. We went along and let them do this and thought ok now the rest of us are safe. Well guess what-now they want to take more from us-big suprise. How anyone can say that an 'assault' rifle is more dangerous than a 'hunting' rifle baffles me. The moment that we let them take these "assault" rifles from us is the beginning of the end for us.:(

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 02:19 PM

Amen HUNTNUT!

rugatika

02-27-2007, 02:34 PM

I am not too sure how many times it must be demonstrated to people who are obviously not students of history that negotiating with terrorists (or in this case gun grabbers) only emboldens them and teaches them that they are on the right path to getting the rest of our guns.

For those that would try and negotiate away "some" of our guns try this little experiment. Walk down some seedy alley with a pocket full of 20 dollar bills and a five dollar bill and wait until you are mugged. While you are being mugged offer your mugger the five in exchange for allowing you to keep the 20's if you don't fight back. Report back to the board with your results.

Okotokian

02-27-2007, 02:53 PM

I'm not so sure it's a great analogy.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, and no disrespect meant, but would you see everyone who holds a position different than yours as a "terrorist", people never to be negotiated or reasoned with? Your mugging analogy is pretty unequivocal. I guess i could use your analogy with regard to a disagreement with my neighbour about where the fence should be. If I show any weakness to him, he will just take more and more and more. I have to stand up and be tough with him and not to give in on anything.

Like most here, I absolutely agree we should be active, campaign, educate, write our representatives, etc. No, I don't think we should roll over and give in quietly. But at the end of the day, there are no constitutionally enshrined rights to own guns in Canada, nor to my knowledge have their ever been. We talk about "rights", but it's not legally a right if it's not somehow enshrined. And we are a small minority in a democracy where the will of the majority rules. We have to be reasonable, do our campaigning, and win over support. Taking a hard uncompromising stand isn't always possible when you are holding a weak hand.

And I definitely don't support the all or nothing thinking of some people... that a limitation on any sort of weapon is a threat to all. I'm sure we all agree that a C6 machine gun or a claymore mine in the hands of a knowledgable law-abiding citizen is a perfectly safe thing... ;) But I draw the line a little earlier than that. The question is just where you draw that line. I DO however believe it should be based on what the weapon can do, not what it looks like.

osterb

02-27-2007, 02:54 PM

ANTI GUN FOLK CANNOT BE REASONED NOR NEGOTIATED WITH!

This is the biggest mistake anyone has ever made. If you can't see what they've done over the past couple of decades you're quite frankly blind. They went from least used, smallest number and gradually became larger.

During the prohibitions certain firearms that were registered in small numbers were outright confiscated from their owners. They government looked over the lists and if they were in small numbers they decided to go door knocking with their arms open. (example Spas 12 shotgun, featherlite at 22)

Why do you think they allowed people to be granfathered to own rifles? Because those rifles were owned in larger numbers and confiscating them would leave several thousands of people in an outrage.

They recently banned prohibited rifles from being shot at ranges. My best guess for the reasoning is to indoctrinate the future generation that these rifles are mere pieces of history and soon to vanish. You can't shoot them and you can't hunt with them. You can go look at them at gunshows and see rifles that you may never own. Banning authorization to transport. Because shooting these rifles at ranges is more dangerous than shooting other rifles? No. It's the neo social engineering that these kinds of guns are socially unacceptable.

Why didn't they ban the authorization to transport prohibited handguns? Prohibited handgun owners account for the largest percentage among the grandfathered classes. To prohibit the transportation and usage of these firearms at approved ranges would cause a larger outcry than the prohibited rifle owners just as confiscating firearms owned in small numbers wouldn't cause a large outcry just as banning militaristic guns in the first place wouldn't cause an outcry amongst the hunters.

Are we beggining to see what's going on here? I find it absolutely amazing and I am appalled that the same group that cries the loudest about the gun registry and howit's sole purpose is for confiscation will turn a blind eye when other types of legally owned firearms are banned and or destined for confiscation (whut in the hell do you need that for anyways?).

The anti-gun lobby is feeding on these very sentiments. Wendy Cukier repeatedly states that she respects hunters and shooters yet carefully words what firearms she wishes banned. It is nothing more than repeatedly using hyperboles in order to have people percieve certain things the way she and her lobby wishes them to be seen.

You can call them high powered assault rifles capable of THEORETICALLY discharging 600 rounds per minute (realistically impossible) or we could take your bolt rifle and call it a high powered sniper rifle capable of reaching 2 miles with optics that ensure maximum accuracy loaded with several supersonic, large caliber, hollow point, armor piercing bullets to maximize casualties when they expand and fragment on impact destroying vital organs, killing instantly.

Some of you have fallen for it. Some of you believe simply because someone labels a gun an "assault rifle" it is meant for "assaulting" people and cannot be used for anything else. Some of you believe anyone who buys them do it for the macho value (as if there's no supposed Macho value in stalking animals in the woods when they clearly have no chance).

The conservatives in light of Dawson contemplated a semi auto ban. Politicians rarely govern on their morality. They're looking for a job and they're looking for what sells the most votes. Don't ever forget that. To trust a government is to trust the wolf to leave the sheep alone. They have and will sell us out. They'll claim they're banning assault rifles. The hunters don't care because they can't use them and the public is happy because these guns are out of the hands of civillians.

Open up your eyes please. It's not hard to see what's happened and will continue to happen.

Dan

02-27-2007, 03:03 PM

great analogy

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 03:58 PM

Hey Oko...we definitely don't have a definitive document like the second amendment but there are some portions of the consitution that may be interpreted as a right to bear arms. It's definitely not a priviledge...we do have some rights as Canadians to protect ourselves from harm.

Okotokian

02-27-2007, 04:10 PM

I'm not so sure Sheep... what section would you say references gun rights?
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/con...#guarantee (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#guarantee)

The only part I see that in my mind could be remotely stretched to that is "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. " where I might argue that security of my person absolutely depended on me having a gun. I can't even make that argument with a straight face.

Okotokian

02-27-2007, 04:11 PM

My god, I have to get a life... :lol :D OK, I'm done.

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 04:16 PM

I guess I could make that arguement with a straight face Oko.....anyhow, I said it wasn't definitive but there are many legal minds that do interpret it that way and at least it's something to fall back on. Like I said, it's no second amendment but it's something that gun owners can fall back on in our constitution. I like to think we do have the right and until challenged in court, I will interpret it that way.

Okotokian

02-27-2007, 06:07 PM

Fair enough. I don't agree, but I can respect where you are coming from... The really interesting thing is that if you (not you personally, I mean anyone) actually takes the security of person statement to be in reference to guns, it would mean we might have a right to concealed carry, but we still would have no right to use guns to hunt. Nothing there on that. Really it's the same in the US. 2nd amendment suggest citizens can use guns to overthrow the government, but not to hunt LOL

209x50cal

02-27-2007, 08:28 PM

Martin promised more gun bans in his last election bid you don't think Dion will not do the same to buy votes in Montreal?

The other problem with negotiating with terrorists and gun grabbers is you instantly give them and their cause validation like the bumblers here have.

osterb

02-27-2007, 08:29 PM

They made it a policy to ban semi autos then they supposedly removed it but it's rumored to just be under another section of their party policy.

They will.

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 11:00 PM

Please allow me a brief moment of self indulcence as I lower the quality of this debate.

209. I have tried time and time again to be reasonable and friendly with you. I have time and time again taken the high road with you. I have been called a moron, an idiot, an anti and a liberal. You have said that you pity my children that will be our next generation because we do not share the same opinion. I decided to accept you reluctant appology (AGAINST WHAT EVERY FIBER IN MY BODY WAS TELLING ME!!!!), with no response. I have finally had enough.

If I can sum you up it would go like this: I say something that you disagree with, you throw a temper tantrum, insult myself and my family, call me names, declare that the sky is falling and you and only you are capable of saving us all. You know what, that reads almost verbatum from page 13 of the official Liberalism for Dummieshandbook. For all of your supposed support and contribution toward the pro-gun lobby, we are worse off than we have ever been before. Great work, good job, here's a raise. Look in the mirror buddy and maybe it is YOUR elitist and inflexible attitude that is driving hunters away from the sport more than the bradys and culkiers are.

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 11:01 PM

OK. I'm going to try to sum this up for everyone because the horse has been dead for a while, so stop hitting it!

I cannot speak for Walleys or for Kannon. For the record (if it even matters, I do not know these posters personally), you guys have astronomically FAILED to comprehend what we have been trying to say.

1. We are hunters. We own guns. Every new law or reg affects us just as much as you.

2. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING BANNING ANY GUNS!

3. We believe that we are under threat!

4. We believe that 'a gun is a gun'.

5. We believe that the system is not perfect.

6. We believe that politicians have to go with 'majority rules' in order to keep their jobs.

7. We KNOW that we are NOT the majority!

8. We KNOW that PUBLIC PERCEPTION and POLLS are the single greatest influence of what a politician supports.

9. We believe that the public's perception in regards to 'assult-style' rifles is a negetive driver that influences the POLLS that the politicians base their self-serving decisions on when it comes to making choices about a minority group that will vote Conservative no matter what!

10. We also KNOW that this is Bull****!!!!

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 11:01 PM

Tree...you sure seem to be speaking for a lot of people and some of your comments are very contrary to what they have posted. I'm certain that walleyes and kanon can speak for themselves and they've done that. Anyhow, your 10 points also seem very contrary to many things you have previously posted. If that's what you meant in the beginning it could have saved a lot of what we've gone through. Of course we all agree that the public needs to be educated and that the government is trying to take more guns away and that resisting public pressure is good when that pressure comes from an misinformed public. That could be my manifesto. Glad you've given up on your ill-conceived plan of giving up more to placate the masses. I'm confused but glad you finally see the light or at least can put it in an understandable form.

For not speaking for the others, you sure used the word "we" a lot. I doubt they'd agree with your manifesto but I guess time will tell.

209x50cal

02-27-2007, 11:03 PM

We also KNOW that this is Bull****!!!!
Yeah most of us had that figured out about you a while ago.

nafegavas

02-27-2007, 11:06 PM

We're by no means out of the woods yet, our current minority government will flip- flop on the gun issues if it means winning a majority. (Look at the recent about face on greenhouse gases)I'm sure PM Harper doesn't buy it but he's selling it now. A scary sign is that President Bush says he will sign any "Assault Weapons" ban bill that comes across his desk. If it happens there, our home grown antis will be baying for the same or worse here. Politicians are very smart and organized, above all they want to get in/stay in power and they know how to play the percentages. If all gun owners could join NFA or CSSA or both we would be a force to be feared. Alas there is too much "I'm alright Jack" attitude and belief that they won't go after hunting guns just handguns and military stuff. Wakey- wakey, try buying a pump shotgun in the U.K. or Australia.

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 11:14 PM

Sheep, a few posts ago, you said to Kannon, "What's wrong with resisting public perception....?" The correct answer is, "nothing". What we have been trying to say is that we need to focus more of our attention on image and perception in this media age and learn how to manipulate it to our advantage. That's what we have been trying to say. Emotions, passions, egos and anger seemed to take over the locked thread and I sincerlly hope it doesn't happen again. This is a vital debate.

sheep hunter

02-27-2007, 11:38 PM

It was me that threw those two terms out there...aimed only at those spewing anti gun rhetoric and wanting to give up more firearms to placate the masses. If some of you thought the name fit...well what can I say.

Tree Guy

02-27-2007, 11:39 PM

Sheep, my 10 points are kind of where I was from the very start. I think that it has just taken this much time to be able to state it more clearly. I hope. Sheep, believe it or not I have re-read every post about 3 times now, trying to find faults in both your premise and mine in order to hopefully educate and elevate the level of both our opinions to the point where two intelligent grown men can at least reach a point where they can understand where the other guy is coming from, but at least respectfully 'agree to disagree'.

I will admit to you right now that some of my posts were written emotionaly rather rationally. I think that we can all say that. What I can say though is that I have tried to answer you HONESTLY, and maintain a (mainly) respectable level of debate.

For our sakes, Sheep, maybe consider me the 'canary in the coal mine". I can't wait for hunting season, I primarily hunt to put meat in the freezer (only one head on the wall in 18 years). I'm just your average hunter I guess (time and money are the main factors). I get in the field maybe 10 times a year. I pay for my tags, I pay my dues, I buy the magazines, etc, etc.

Where I am is one of the so called average Joe hunters who is disillusioned with both the governments and the gun lobby. Both have failed us. I know that we MUST KEEP UP THE FIGHT OR.....

I am only (once again) speaking for myself, but I feel that I am an outdoorsman that doesn't think that ANY side supports me. There is an enormous number of hunters that feel that way. Any time we make an effort we get insulted and called names by the very people we pay money to that claim to fight for us and we have less rights than ever. Can you not forgive the so-called 'Black Gun Three' for feeling a bit jaded and abandoned?

209x50cal

02-28-2007, 12:05 AM

Aw that wasn't a tantrum now was it tree? your self issued halo slip a little just now? I can tell you that what you call "reasonable and friendly" I call ignorant and rude, so it really shouldn't come as any surprise that I don't agree with your anti gun rhetoric. but hey it takes all kinds to make up the world.

209x50cal

02-28-2007, 12:18 AM

209. I have tried time and time again to be reasonable and friendly with you. I have time and time again taken the high road with you. I have been called a moron, an idiot, an anti and a liberal.
I just want to clear something up here. I have called you an anti. I never called you a liberal nor a moron. You maybe a moron and a liberal for all I know but I never once called you either.

kanonfodder

02-28-2007, 01:16 AM

Perhaps I missed some posts but who was spouting anti gun rhetoric? And who wanted to give up more firearms to placate the masses? Could you point this out, I would appreciate it thanx
....I think you may be refering to this statement I had made, I think perhaps you are confusing a possible comprimise to ensure our hunting rights with total surrender...again it's just a thought an opinion it's not tattood on me like a manifesto....

Sure it's not fair but thats why the public needs to be educated. I understand alot of people oppose any ban simply because they're afraid of the slippery slope of the " next one",( semis etc) I get it but I feel that we can have a little give and take without drawing a line in the sand. I don't think that black guns need to be the hill we die on..(metaphorically speakin)

Tree Guy

02-28-2007, 01:23 AM

Osterb. I posted on the previous thread that I wanted to put a poll out there about this debate. I started a thread asking for advice on what would be the fairest, least 'leading', and most un biased question to ask. I agonized over it all day at work and finally came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth creating a poll amongst outdoorsmen that could be used against us. I just envisioned the toronto star, "57% of hunters reject assult-style rifles!!!!"

The easiest question for me to poll would have been to ask, 'Do you think that black guns hurt our public image: Yes or No?' That would have been unfair and misleading. The best I could come up with was, 'Do you feel that the general public's perception of gun owners is influenced by assult-styled rifles?' It would not have been my final question after taking in as many opinions as possible from my thread, but that's moot now. We all know that politicians cowtow to majority polls. I just think that the poll question you posted may have been a bit leading. Of course we're going to say that one gun should be regulated just as much as another when the 'look' of it is the sole difference.

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 01:27 AM

Giving a little to a misinformed public and getting nothing in return is a total compromise and total surrender...so no, there was no misunderstanding. I ask again kanon...who are you making this compromise with. Who said to you.."give up a few guns and we'll ensure your right to hunt?" What guns are you giving up for that "right" to hunt? At what point will you say that's all the guns you get. And who asked you to negotatiate on behalf of Canadian gun owners? You may also want to check that Canadian book of words called the Constitution. We have no right to hunt so how can someone say they will ensure we have that if we give up a few guns?

I don't think I need to look any further back for your anti gun rhetoric. I think your statement above is all I need to see.

Tree Guy

02-28-2007, 01:38 AM

Osterb, one last point. In a previous post you said, "ANTI GUN FOLD CANNOT BE REASONED NOR NEGOTIATED WITH!"

Once again you are 100% correct. However, what I have learned as, 'Joe Blow Hunter' is that the PRO GUN SIDE CANNOT BE REASONED NOT NEGOTIATED WITH EITHER!.

Thats why there are thousands and thousands of your fellow sportsmen that live a life in limbo. Both sides yell at us and call us names! One side is as bad as the other! There are literally 10's or even 100's of thousands of us that feel that way. We have ideas, we can help, we can contribute. Yet we are excluded for differing opinions and subject to personal attacks by closed minded individuals (yes 209, I ment you) to whom we pay annual fees to, or at least used to. For alot of us, the capitain has hit his last iceberg. We do not feel represented!

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 01:42 AM

Tree...do you even read your posts before you hit "add reply"?

And here I was just starting to like you again.

Tree Guy

02-28-2007, 01:55 AM

Sheep I read my posts over and over before I post them (mostly lol). That last post had nothing to do with you, it was deservingly aimed in 209's direction. If anyone, you have illustrated a desire to try to get myself and others back 'on-board'. If anyone, (eventually once you seemed to calm down a bit) you and osterb have provided for the most informative posts. I have learned alot from this debate. Honestly, I don't know how much my opinion has swayed, but you have suceeded in giving me a little different perspective on the debate. For that all I can hope is that I have managed to give you a little different perspective on the debate. Thank you, and maybe we are both a little wiser for it.

kanonfodder

02-28-2007, 01:57 AM

Well for one, the hardline stance seemed to have had little impact on C-17 or c-68 maybe we need a new approach? If a new government came into power next year and proposed changes to the gun laws and asked for your input as a stakeholder would you hold fast and true to no comprimise at no time/ all or nothing mentality?
Nobody has asked me to negotiate anything nor have I offered all I have done is expressed a different view thats all, at no time did I say we should confiscate guns, ban guns, restrict guns. I stated I understood why some people may wish to. Please show me my anti gun rhetoric, which statement was anti gun? I have expressed a dislike for assault style guns and profesed I had no need for them, but hey I don't care much for trolling when I fish but hey if you do go crazy....why is a different view so scary to some?
I am all for a little positive publicity for hunters and outdoorsmen, but truth tell the media loves contraversy and violence to any feel good story we may have. Writers like you and Neil are very important in keeping our outdoors available to us and I feel your harsh rhetoric may do more harm than good....just differing opinions Sheep, shouldn't be the end all be all of our existance no?

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 02:10 AM

Kanon, the day we say go ahead an ban a couple assault-style guns is the day we lose all semi autos. Those are Stockwell Day's words...not mine but I sure as heck agree with them. So yes, I do have a hardline stance that I'm not willing to compromise. Your wishy washy approach to this whole debate and your lack of knowledge is indeed frightening. You have made several erronious and downright dangerous statements but instead of stepping back to learn, you just get louder. That's what scares me. Before you reply with another long diatribe, answer me these few questions...and please stick to the questions. I know I've asked them countless times before and you managed to avoid them but I'd like an answer. And before you start shouting again and further demonstrating your total lack of knowledge on this subject, take a minute to answer the question consicely and maybe I'll change my mind about you.

1) What guns exactly are you willing to give up?

2) Who is it that will entrench our right to hunt if we give up a few guns?

3) Who do we negotiate with when we agree to give up some guns so we may keep the rest of our guns.

4) What guns are you unwilling to give up?

5) At what point will you side with gun owners and say things have gone too far?

6) Which guns do you consider tactical weapons?

7) What constitutes an assault-style rifle?

8) Does Canada have a Constitution?

I anxiously await your answers.

kanonfodder

02-28-2007, 02:19 AM

I will see your list and raise you with one of my own
1. What statement has been eronneous?
2. What statement has made you ooooooohhhh scaarrrred?
3. Which statement is/was dangerous.
4. What statements constitute anti gun rhetoric.
5 Where is it stated I want you to give up all your guns to placate the masses?
6.Was the Pyra thread where our friendship ended?
7 Are we still on for beer at the edmonton show?
8 Do you still wanna join our club?

well im off to sleep, have a good nite all, lighten up Sheep at your self professed old age it's not good for ya :b

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 02:20 AM

I will see your list and raise you with one of my own

1. What statement has been eronneous? (Where should I start...Canada has no Constitution?....I can go on if you like)

2. What statement has made you ooooooohhhh scaarrrred?(Really it's happening right now? I must have missed Stockewll Day's big announcement, which guns are now banned and/or restricted? I must have nodded off as we youngsters need our sleep.)

3. Which statement is/was dangerous. (as I said this whole debate is theoretical at this time....)

4. What statements constitute anti gun rhetoric. (I understand alot of people oppose any ban simply because they're afraid of the slippery slope of the " next one",( semis etc) I get it but I feel that we can have a little give and take without drawing a line in the sand. I don't think that black guns need to be the hill we die on..(metaphorically speakin)

5 Where is it stated I want you to give up all your guns to placate the masses? (You never said all...you said some...again with putting words in my mouth)

6.Was the Pyra thread where our friendship ended? (Never knew that we were friends but my only complaint about your actions in the pyra thread were that you kept putting words in my mouth that I never said and attributing actions to me that I never took. I thought we dealt with that privately kanon. Something you still want to get off your chest?)

7 Are we still on for beer at the edmonton show? (Sure, you buying?)

8 Do you still wanna join our club? (Never did)

Okay, now your turn. I know you don't have the answers to what you are spewing and I guess that's what scares me most. You talk about aussalt-style guns like they are easily categorized. You include bolt-action rifles in the group of scary tactical weapons. Oh ya, sorry, I already answered your questions. Now take a stab at mine.

osterb

02-28-2007, 06:34 AM

If a new government came into power next year and proposed changes to the gun laws and asked for your input as a stakeholder would you hold fast and true to no comprimise at no time/ all or nothing mentality?

Compromising has not done us any good in the past two decades. The 12(2)-12(6) guys know that. First they ban your gun then they tell you you can shoot it anymore.

Anti gun rhetoric?

A fine example was Walleyes IIRC. AR stand for ASSAULT rifle (which I already pointed out does not) Why would you need a rifle that's meant to ASSAULT. That is anti gun rhetoric. They'll play on rate of fire and then they'll get the repeaters and finally they'll go on "high powered". It is all or nothing. You don't give them an inch. I'm all for stringent licensing. I accept that these menacing rifles are to be kept registered. That bothers me little (until of course they come looking for them). Divide and conquer is the government's game. You can't give in. We don't want rpg's and Light machine guns. We want to keep what we have. I would love a fal, and AUG, and some HK rifles.

209x50cal

02-28-2007, 08:45 AM

Yet we are excluded for differing opinions and subject to personal attacks by closed minded individuals (yes 209, I ment you) to whom we pay annual fees to, or at least used to.
I'll take that as a compliment.
I read this and the last thread completely through this am, you should too tree. You have accomplished nothing other than stir up a storm of hot air and dissension. You have waffled all over your subject and when repeatedly asked what your solution is to this problem you believe exists you duck and dodge and stir more mud into the mix.
I'll sleep very well tonight happy that you don't like my pro gun stance.

rugatika

02-28-2007, 08:53 AM

As long as osterb is putting together his Christmas list may as well throw mine in. An AR-10T would be an awesome little hunting rifle as well.

www.armalite.com/sales/ca...alog10.pdf (http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/adobeCatalog/ArmaLiteCatalog10.pdf)

And I'm sorry to disagree with you Osterb but I am not really fine with registering guns. As far as I can tell it serves no purpose other than creating another hurdle for gun owners. Give a PAL to a person and he should be able to buy whatever gun he wants. (No nukes or cruise missiles is where I draw the line in the sand).

The Pro gun lobby CAN be reasoned and negotiated with as long as the arguments have some thread of common sense to them. They never do though.

It has been mentioned that public perception is the problem. Well maybe gun owners need to hire an image consultant and some PR people (I'm being serious). The Hells Angels seem to be acceptable enough for people to the point that the mayor of Toronto would shake hands with their leader. Maybe we just need to make shooting sports and hunting into something more "normal" and cool. Look at some of the latest adds from Beretta and you'll get my drift.

From the articles Sheep has written in AO I can see he is doing his part to get people into the shooting sports. I took a co-worker (never fired a shotgun before) out to the clays range last summer and he had a blast. If we could have taken an AR-15 out to a field and blasted some watermelons, done some target shooting etc he would be a convert to "ASSAULT RIFLES" (the a stands for assault don't ya know).

There are many people who think that AR shooters are survivalist or whatever their sterotype is. If it were easier to own them...more people would own them...more regular folks would be exposed to seeing people own them...more non-shooting people would wind up shooting them and they would become normalized to the point that it would only be the psychotic gun grabbers, who we will never get to leave us alone anyway, that will want to take them.

My point is that there are lots of people who only have an opinion on these guns as a result of what the media has fed them and are open minded to accept another opinion on these guns if it is presented to them in a better light. These are the people we need to get on our side.

Okotokian

02-28-2007, 11:02 AM

OK. I'm going to try to sum this up for everyone because the horse has been dead for a while, so stop hitting it!

It may be dead for you, it's not for some others here who still want to banter back and forth. Relax tree... if you don't want to read anymore, don't. But don't tell others to clam up just because you've had enough. No one is compelling you to click on this chain and read it. There are plenty of others my friend :D

Okotokian

02-28-2007, 11:30 AM

Its sort of funny the way we are talking here... "What would we agree to give up?" "We should agree to give nothing up". It's like we actually think we have a say in any of this.

This isn't a negotiation. The government will not come to gun owners and say "Ok, so what would you be willing to give up?" anymore than they go to taxpayers and ask what they would be willing to pay for. Gun owners and gun ownership have no standing legally. There is no one voice who speaks for gun owners or is empowered to negotiate. That fact should be obvious to anyone who has read three posts in this chain.

And the government really isn't the enemy here guys. Governments do whatever they think will get them the most votes. SO the plan should be two-fold. Develop gun owners into a special interest group that can deliver votes, and work on ensuring that the general public, who are mostly neutral to guns and hunting, at least stay neutral. And I think the "hunting" part of that equation is paramount. I could be wrong, but I think the public is more sympathetic to hunting than it is to guns, so always tie the two together. Except for Peta types,"hunting" appeals to their memories of old uncle Ernie in his plaid and blaze... Say "Guns" and they think shoot-outs in schools. Pushing for MORE gun rights, for guns that have little to do with hunting, concealed carry rights, etc. just isn't going to fly. But I think we can make reasonable and successful arguments to keep what we have, and i suspect that 90% of gun owners would probably be happy with that.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if the next time there was a school invasion by some whack job, a guy living across the street with a legally registered rifle runs in and shoots the perp and rescues the kids before the cops arrive. THAT would be some good PR LOL

M70

02-28-2007, 01:57 PM

Oko,

I was on your wagon until your last paragraph. Your fantasy "What if?" scenario appears to contradict your previous comment about promoting guns through hunting and shooting sports.

I don't know what I would do in the scene you imagine but I wouldn't want to be holding a rifle when the Tac team showed up. The hero fantasy has little to do with real gun ownership. Even though there was the case of the off duty police officer in Utah that had to stop the shooter in the mall, I'm not sure of how the Canadian public would feel about a civilian speculating on doing the same. I fear it might actually hurt the cause.

I agree with your comments that, concealed carry is not going to happen and even self defence use of a firearm in one's own home is an uphill climb. Let's stick to the debate at hand. Let's fight to maintain gun ownership for hunting, shooting targets and collecting. (Edit done for spelling.)

Okotokian

02-28-2007, 04:19 PM

Thanks for the comments M70. Don't read too much into my last paragraph. It was just a throw-away line. I wouldn't seriously advocate that. I should have been clearer.

osterb

02-28-2007, 04:26 PM

And I'm sorry to disagree with you Osterb but I am not really fine with registering guns. As far as I can tell it serves no purpose other than creating another hurdle for gun owners. Give a PAL to a person and he should be able to buy whatever gun he wants. (No nukes or cruise missiles is where I draw the line in the sand).

Theoretically I have little problem with a gun registry. Whether or not it works or not is irrelevant. Theoretically if I could trust a government and I could shoot where I wished and own what I wished it's nto a problem for me. Switzerland has madatory military training for all young men where they are trained to shoot their service rifles and be kept in their houses. Machine guns in every closet, what a scary concept... They have an astronomically low crime rate and misuse of guns is minimal. They aren't permitted to own automatics outside of their military training but they may buy the rifle in semi auto only after they're done their service.

They do of course have very tight regulations on guns. Comparing Canada to Switzerland is not an easy task as they are more socialist than us (and I hate admitting that socialism has it's upsides :lol )

The thing is, Switzerland wouldn't disarm it's populace because the populace is it's military unlike Canada where we have no real "need" to possess guns.

Okotokian

02-28-2007, 04:47 PM

unlike Canada where we have no real "need" to possess guns.

Oh baby, I'm waiting for the explosion that comment is gonna cause here. Get the defibrilator ready for a few members! :lol

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 04:48 PM

I'm pretty sure that was a tongue in cheek comment Oko...relax. I think osterb has made it pretty clear where he stands on this whole issue unlike the waffling/flip-flop crowd.

Tree Guy

02-28-2007, 07:10 PM

Oko, the 'dead horse thing was in reference to my own feelings. Great post.

Guys, I entered into this debate less informed than I am now. For that I will offer a thank you. However, although I have been less than perfect in trying to convey how I truelly feel, this discussion has changed my perception on some issues and reinforced them in others. My failing is in how I have communicated how I feel.

I will stand behind everything I have posted, and concede that some of my posts have not been able to express what I was trying to get at. My biggest mistake was assuming that this was just another chat room debate and started posting based on what I assumed was a hypothetical argument. Things blew up, I was insulted and angery and that's where a small number of my posts came from. To be a person who's paid dues, reg fees, membership fees, etc, etc, and who's favourite time of the year is hunting season called a liberal and an anti. An idiot a moron and a libiality to anyone that owns a guns, it angered and hurt me. For some to tell me that they pity my children, how would those of you who oppose me react to that?

I have tried to play this honestly, I have tried to play this intellectually, and I have tried to play this with a willingness to listen to others and judge for myself.

What I am guilty of here is giving an honest answer. I am uncomfortable with 'black guns' in regards to the public's perception of them. Would I support further restrictions or worse on these guns if it guaranteed my kids and future grandkids a lifetime of hunting? Yes. At this point in my life, that's where I stand, in the hypothetical argument.

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 07:11 PM

It might be hypothetical to you tree but for those of us that have seen guns confiscated and restricted it is all too real. The best advice to you would be to refrain from interjecting your hypothetical thoughts into a real debate and possibly you will be treated with the respect you so desire. Your poor me, I'm just an average Joe schtick is getting a bit tired. If you want to talk and interact with the grown ups it's time to act like one. Sorry if this offendes you but to many of us on the site, gun issues are all too real and our passion is expressed vigorously. If you can't play nice in this sandbox, possibly you should look for a new one. We are all just average Joes in this debate but that doesn't stop some of us from taking it seriously and being passionate about it. This is one average Joe talking to another but I'm not about to lie down. My hunting and shooting sports mean too much for me. Maybe you should reflect a bit and see what they mean to you.

M70

02-28-2007, 07:35 PM

I figured it was a joke and I didn't mean to be so anal about it. It's been a long day and I want/need a beer.

ratherbehunting

02-28-2007, 07:38 PM

i agree 100% what sheephunter is saying.
if you let them get their foot in the door
there will be no stopping them! he knows
what he is talking about .i trust him more
than government any day!

209x50cal

02-28-2007, 08:36 PM

Your poor me, I'm just an average Joe schtick is getting a bit tired. If you want to talk and interact with the grown ups it's time to act like one. Sorry if this offendes you but to many of us on the site, gun issues are all too real and our passion is expressed vigorously
:rollin :rollin :rollin

osterb

02-28-2007, 09:52 PM

What I am guilty of here is giving an honest answer. I am uncomfortable with 'black guns' in regards to the public's perception of them. Would I support further restrictions or worse on these guns if it guaranteed my kids and future grandkids a lifetime of hunting? Yes. At this point in my life, that's where I stand, in the hypothetical argument.

Hopefully they haven't banned pointy sticks by then because that's what they'll be using if black guns were banned and I have my way. That is the very essense of selling out. You really need to familiarize yourself with "black rifles". You'll see they are no different than any other.

prairieboy

02-28-2007, 10:07 PM

Would I support further restrictions or worse on these guns if it guaranteed my kids and future grandkids a lifetime of hunting?

Let's be realistic,who would make such a guarantee?Certainly not any of our political parties,or the anti gun crowd.If you believe otherwise,you need to leave the fantasy world that you are in and get back to reality.

Tree Guy

02-28-2007, 11:07 PM

Sheep, you're an average Joe too? That's awesome! Well if we are the same, then why are we arguing? Oh wait, I know, I am a seasonal worker who is the head of a single income family trying to eke out an existance in Calgary. Hunting tags to me mean saving up. A day in the field means a day off work! So for someone who is 'who you are', to try to say that you are the same as I am, is disputable at best. Can't you see that there a thousand different types of 'Average Joe' here? Can't you see that?

nafegavas

02-28-2007, 11:22 PM

"....and then they came for me."

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 11:27 PM

Tree, you obviously haven't got a clue what writers make. I'm just a work a day guy that buys my tags like everyone else. I'm not sure what you are getting at, but average Joe is my middle name. Draconian gun laws affect us both, it's just that I'm willing to stand up and be heard to protect what is so near and dear to me. Like I said, going and sitting in the corner of the sandbox and listening might garner you the respect you so desperately seek. This pathetic poor me act of yours is getting old.

Tree Guy

02-28-2007, 11:36 PM

I give. You guys win. I am tired of trying to reason with you. I am tired of giving an honest answer and being yelled at for it. Would you have prefered that I LIED? That is somehow where this has ended up. Where it started was with my discomfort about how the general public percieved 'black guns'. It started with how we should be concerned about how that perception may be the BIGGEST threat to us. I was asked what my line was and I answered honestly. I maybe one of the few that will publically stand up and admit that. I know for a fact that I am not the only one who feels that way.

My failure lies in not being able to communicate effectivelly. My failure lies in giving an honest answer.
My failure lies in thinking that those who represent us may be willing to listen to a different perspective.
My failure lies in being an optimist.

It's time to hear from others on this one.

sheep hunter

02-28-2007, 11:45 PM

Please reread the last sentence in my post above!

osterb

03-01-2007, 05:36 AM

You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to tell you if the hunters sell the rest of the gun owners out they'll be first in line advocating the ban of hunting and traditional sporting rifles. An eye for an eye.

209x50cal

03-01-2007, 08:00 AM

I know, I am a seasonal worker who is the head of a single income family trying to eke out an existance in Calgary. Hunting tags to me mean saving up. A day in the field means a day off work!
Oh grow up! You're sniveling and it is embarassing. Do you think you are the only one who has ever had it tough? Big deal.
Get down off the cross the preacher needs it on Sunday.

Okotokian

03-01-2007, 10:59 AM

It's time to hear from others on this one.

Well, OK. I wasn't going to say anything, but you asked.
I don't have any problems with your arguments. I agree with some, don't on others. Even if you waffle back and forth, I don't really care. Big deal, it's just a bulletin board. Nothing earth shaking is decided here. I've changed my mind on a few issues from time to time, made a few posts that on second thought I might have taken back. so have others. I'm pretty forgiving of that sort of thing, would be nice if others were too.

But I have to admit I've found the last part of this chain sort of embarassing. I'm not sure if you are trying to suck up to some of the folks here ("I've learned a lot, really respect, yadda yadda sort of comments) or gain some sympathy and forgiveness. Not sure why you would mention being a poor seasonal worker that has to save up for tags, go on about how "I guess I'm guilty of... " I can almost picture you holding the back of your hand to your forehead a la Scarlet O'Hara as you say that. It does seem like you are using a "poor me, you guys are so mean to me" strategy. Have some guys been rude to you? sure they have, but a better reply would be "You are entitled to your opinion. I don't share it" full stop.... or at worst, "Screw off you moron" :lol (I personally think the first option is better, and try, with clenched fists, to follow it when I can LOL) Just seems more manly than the approach taken so far.

But buck up. I like having you around. Nice to have an alternate target to myself when some of the members who think the NRA is a little too "wussy" get going here! :lol

sheep hunter

03-01-2007, 01:31 PM

Here are a few of the facts as I see them...anyone care to comment? Only real world comments please...I'm not interested in hypothetical or theoretical.

1) Gun have been confiscated and restricted

2) More guns will be confiscated and restricted and trust me, it is not only black guns that will be targeted. There is a move a foot to target all semi autos which would likely include shotguns.

3) There is no group only targeting black guns. Yes they are an easy target because they have a small following but if the anti groups get them banned, trust me, they will not stop there.

4) Yes there is some negative public perception of black guns...possibly even more than other guns but banning guns based on looks and not function is ludacrous. Additionally, there is no one to negotiate with. Giving in to public pressure will gain nothing. It's not like they'll remember it a year from now and let us keep some guns because we so compliently gave up others. In a rational world maybe but these aren't rational people. Giving up guns now will definitely not ensure a future for your kids, it will jeopardize it.

5) You can't ban a few guns and placate the antis. There is no gun that will be the last one to satisfy them unless it is indeed the last gun. That's why we need to draw the line now. Anyone willing to give up any more guns is sadly dillusional that it will help anything.

Okotokian

03-01-2007, 01:31 PM

More guns will be confiscated and restricted and trust me, it is not only black guns that will be targeted.

Sort of violated your own guideline of dealing with only facts here and not the "hypothetical or theoretical". You are making a prediction. What you or anyone thinks is likely to happen in the future is never a "fact". It's an opinion.

picky picky picky, eh? you can slap me later :b

sheep hunter

03-01-2007, 01:32 PM

How about I slap you now Oko.....

If you took time to read the post rather than jumping in with inane comments just to see your pathetic name in lights you'd notice that these were the facts in my opinion. I qualified that. If you looked up the definition of hypoythetical and theoretical you'd see it doesn't apply here. If you have something intelligent to add to a topic by all means post but this crusade of yours to see how many inane comments you can post on every topic is getting annoying. Add something or shut up...okay buddy? This requires no reply!

Grown ups are trying to have a real conversation here about a serious topic.

Check It

03-01-2007, 02:36 PM

"( ...Guns Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted...
...It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own...
...turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in...")A Little old but interesting . you could try (www.snopes.com/crime/stat...usguns.asp (http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp) )

blah blah blah

03-01-2007, 03:02 PM

"Never mind about stats and all that other stuff for now."What a ass thing to say I see its about ****ing and crying poor me why why why ok .Keep going in circles some of you are sounding ____real dum .Like a scratched up cd playing the same crap over and over getting no where .

sheep hunter

03-01-2007, 03:03 PM

I kind of agree with rug on this one....I don't think anyone is arguing on here that we need guns for protection from crime. Not saying that we don't but when that is the last argument we have left, we'll be close to losing them all. Right now I want to keep my guns because I love to shoot and hunt and that should be all the reasons we need.

rugatika

03-01-2007, 03:39 PM

Never mind about stats and all that other stuff for now.

Look at it from a purely libertarian/common sense point of view. Why should a law abiding citizen be denied access to certain pieces of property to begin with?? There is nothing inherently evil about a single shot shotgun or a semi-auto "black" rifle. If you are licenced to own a gun (PAL) then why should you not be allowed to own and hunt with an AR-10 for example?? There is no common sense reason why you shouldn;t be able to.

Am I missing something here? If public perception is the problem then maybe the general public should stay at home so they are not offended by seeing someone dressed in camo, or toting an AR. Frankly I am more worried and uncomfortable around a bunch of Hells Angels. If public perception/comfort level is the measure with which we use to ban certain items then lets have at it. I am sure we can get all sorts of things banned. Baggy pants, backwards hats, japped up cars, loud motorbikes, mean looking dogs and so on.

Democracy and liberty do not give you the right to go through life being unoffended with a warm fuzzy feeling. Nor does it give you the right to vote aways rights of others. If seeing someone with an AR in the woods make you feel uneasy, then stay the hell out of the woods.

Just my 2 cents

AGREED

03-01-2007, 04:22 PM

"I want to keep my guns because I love to shoot and hunt and that should be all the reasons we need." I agree total with you on that .

rugatika

03-01-2007, 04:42 PM

CJ. I apologise for not making my point clearer. I will try harder to help you understand.

My point being that even if banning something makes the country safer or more "comfortable" it does not make it right. More children die in swimming pool accidents in the states than by firearms accidents. Does that mean we should ban swimming pools? Why should the irresponsible use of a tool by others infringe on my right to own and use that tool??

I could understand if there was something inherently dangerous about the tool (like a drill that spontaneously blows up for example). But in the case of an AR the only dangerous element to it lies in the user. A licensing system is used to ensure that people that aquire and use the tools for which they are licenced are adequately trained and of responsible character to use and own them. Thus my point that once you acquire a PAL it should not matter which firearm you wish to use. A person that should not be using an AR should probaby not be using a 338winMag bolt action.

I will try harder to

03-01-2007, 05:12 PM

I will try harder to help you understand. No need to i understand and read these post's .

"My point being that even if banning something makes the country safer or more "comfortable" it does not make it right."I know what you mean .I posted that pcs. out of intrest thats all .Golf clubs ,chain saws ,Base ball bats etc its never ending ,swimming pool accidents i total agree but there will always be the nay sayers .For anything we do .

"A person that should not be using an AR should probaby not be using a 338winMag bolt action. "agreed a gun is just that a gun its the user behind the gun .

kanonfodder

03-02-2007, 01:48 AM

Well here you are like em or not....
1) What guns exactly are you willing to give up?
I would rather not give up any, so until I am actually given a some or all or nothing proposition by the powers that be it’s moot.

2) Who is it that will entrench our right to hunt if we give up a few guns?
I was referring more to a bill along the lines of the private members bill that was recently defeated. One that would acknowledge all Canadians right to our hunting and fishing heritage. So the short answer would be the federal government

3) Who do we negotiate with when we agree to give up some guns so we may keep the rest of our guns.

Well this is a hypothetical but, as others have stated if the government decides to ban some guns, neither what I want or you want will probably matter. So it doesn’t matter what I am willing to give up or what you aren’t
4) What guns are you unwilling to give up?
See above

5) At what point will you side with gun owners and say things have gone too far?

? I am a gun owner.
6) Which guns do you consider tactical weapons?
Personally I feel any weapon could be considered a tactical weapon including handguns, different tactics require different weapons

7) What constitutes an assault-style rifle?
This is a term that is kinda used in a vague way similar I guess to "black guns" it's a reference politicians tend to use. I would say it refers to a military style weapon, large detachable magazine, semi or fully automatic used primarily for close combat by military/and or police. May or may not have a foldable stock or pistol grip....

As long as this debate remains civil I will keep at 'er.

sheep hunter

03-02-2007, 02:09 AM

Ya you're right kanon...they were pretty lame answers and I didn't like them but hey, you did answer them.

kanonfodder

03-02-2007, 02:14 AM

:D thanks Sheep, I thought the same about the questions,:b sorry tired time for bed....

Okotokian

03-02-2007, 10:00 AM

If you took time to read the post rather than jumping in with inane comments just to see your pathetic name in lights you'd notice that these were the facts in my opinion.

hmmm so "guns will be confiscated in the future" is "the fact in your opinion"... You lost me.

I'll ignore the insults and try to zero in on your logic. So are you saying your opinions are and should be regarded as facts, or are you simply saying "It's a fact that these are my opinions"? To the first option, that makes no sense to any sane person. If it's the second, that doesn't add any weight to what is still an opinion.

Now the insults, that's a different matter. They definitely do make your arguments resonate more and enhance your reputation as an insightful thinker ;) I'm a big fan personally.

sheep hunter

03-02-2007, 10:01 AM

Never knew I had a reputation as an insightful thinker but thanks for the compliment.

If you had any common sense Oko, you'd know that when some states "these are the facts as they see them" that it is a saying for "this is my opinion." I'm sorry if that flew right over your head but it seems a lot of things do on this site.

Let's make a deal Oko......you resist hitting send if your post requires an emoticon to express the inane nature of it and the grown ups will let stay up late one night next week to watch cartoons.

k?

Okotokian

03-02-2007, 12:52 PM

Let's make a deal Oko......you resist hitting send if your post requires an emoticon to express the inane nature of it and the grown ups will let stay up late one night next week to watch cartoons.

That's cool Sheep, if you quite insulting anyone who disagrees with or questions you. Any flaws in your logic I've noted seem to generate a flow of disdain and insults from you. FYI, "If you had any common sense" is an insult.

:D Sorry, couldn't help myself.

sheep hunter

03-02-2007, 12:59 PM

Wasn't an insult at all Oko....just an observation.

Now let's stop this nit picking and get back to the important topic at hand. K?

Okotokian

03-02-2007, 01:50 PM

Deal

Tree Guy

03-03-2007, 01:44 AM

In a moment of utter dejection over the Ryan Smyth deal, I threw in the towel. I was wrong, I'm back.

Guys. Sheep has dedicated his life to preserving OUR RIGHTS. We may disagree with him on many levels and emotions sometimes may get the best of us, but we must thank him for fighting our fight.

Here is what WE are fighting about:

They feel that we must be united and strong. They feel that all of our guns 'could' be confiscated due to the culckiers and bradys; history is on their side. They feel that if we do not share the 'line in the sand philosophy' we are antis.

We agree with them. We are hunters and gun owners too. What affects them, affects us. Through it all, what we have been trying to say is that our image, and what the general public thinks about us is our most important consideration in the new media age.

The culkiers and bradys are funded by donations. The more innocents slaughtered with guns the better for these guys! Death = $! Think about it, they are the people whom are hoping that another 'Ecole Polytechnique', or 'Watson College' plays out. They are sitting at home, wishing for an even larger massacar to further their cause! How sick is that? The slaughter of innocents is what they two-fold want. Media coverage leading to further donations, and to put that assult, "possibly automatic" gun on TV to associate it with a tragedy is their best strategy. That is why we have been fighting. It's a 'line in the sand' thing versus a 'public perception' thing. Who is right? I think we all are, and I think we all aren't.

nafegavas

03-03-2007, 04:59 PM

With all due respect, wendy cukier's coalition for gun control recieved most of its funding from the former liberal government of Canada. Tax dollars being spent to lobby a government on how to direct public policy. Cukier teaches jounalism at Ryerson university in Toronto and thus is an expert at molding public perception. Don't let any one compromise your feelings on gun ownership, if you're a good person you have a right to own whatever you want without apology, evil governments try to take away that right.

osterb

03-03-2007, 09:11 PM

An interesting note.

Assault rifle was the name given by Adolf Hitler in 1944 for his new MP44 which was actually a subgun. The term "assault rifle" is Hitler's terminology. ;)

kanonfodder

03-04-2007, 01:25 AM

Ya I read that somewhere too he, coined the phrase stormrifle or Sturmgewehr to describe his new mp44

Okotokian

03-05-2007, 10:22 AM

Death = $! Think about it, they are the people whom are hoping that another 'Ecole Polytechnique', or 'Watson College' plays out. They are sitting at home, wishing for an even larger massacar to further their cause! How sick is that? The slaughter of innocents is what they two-fold want.

I hardly think so. No sane person wants more slaughter. Over the top.

osterb

03-05-2007, 02:25 PM

I hardly think so. No sane person wants more slaughter. Over the top.

Ahem...

I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress. I think it's got to be worse than Columbine..."
- Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy on the subject of gun control laws

Awfully close.

rugatika

03-05-2007, 03:36 PM

"A gun is a tool Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that." - Alan Ladd. SHANE

Okotokian

03-05-2007, 04:12 PM

Guess it depends on your interpretation Osterb. I didn't take that quote as him WANTING that to happen.

nafegavas

03-05-2007, 07:18 PM

Reread it, that's exactly what he wants.

nafegavas

03-07-2007, 05:54 AM

Very pertinent to this thread.

www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/phar_022707/

Re: Good article

03-07-2007, 08:38 AM

Excellent post on that article.

Here is a copy of a letter from Jim Zumbo outlining the "facts" as he now sees them.

JIM ZUMBO

February 28, 2007

Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Dear Alan:

They say that hindsight is always 20-20. In my case, hindsight has been a hard teacher, like the father teaching the son a lesson about life in the wood shed.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

I would hope instead to use this spotlight to address my hunting fraternity, many of whom shared my erroneous position. I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts an unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.

My own lack of experience was no excuse for ignoring the fact that millions of Americans – people who would share a campfire or the shelter of their tent, and who have hurt nobody – own, hunt with and competitively shoot or collect the kinds of firearms I so easily dismissed.

I recently took a “crash course” on these firearms with Ted Nugent, to learn more about them and to educate myself. In the process, I learned about the very real threat that faces all American gun owners.

I’ve studied up on legislation now in Congress that would renew and dangerously expand a ban on many types of firearms. The bill, HR 1022 sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is written so broadly that it would outlaw numerous firearms and accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. I understand that some of the language could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns as well as those of all American hunters.

The extremist supporters of HR 1022 don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like you and me with the simple stroke of a pen. They will do anything they can to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

Realizing that what I wrote catered to this insidious attack on fellow gun owners has, one might say, “awakened a sleeping giant within me, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right.

Enclosed, you will find a check that is intended to be used to fight and defeat HR 1022. I also hope it inspires other gun owners to “do as I do, not as I say.”

I’m putting my money where my mouth should have been, and where my heart and soul have always been. I know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never has been. My blunder was in thinking that by working to protect precious hunting rights I was doing enough. I promise it will never happen again.

I don’t know what lies over the horizon for me. I am not ready for the rocking chair.

I’m going to devote every ounce of my energy to this battle. I will remind my fellow hunters that we are first, gun owners. Whether we like it or not, our former apathy and prejudices may place that which we love, hunting, in jeopardy. I will educate fellow outdoorsmen who mistakenly think like I talked, even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done. I was wrong, and I’m going to make it right.

Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo

Good reading

03-07-2007, 08:54 AM

"I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right. "I beleave him very good read thanks altahunter

Re: Good reading

03-07-2007, 08:59 AM

I think this is the most pertinent and insightful quote from the letter

I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts an unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.

sheep hunter

03-07-2007, 11:20 AM

I know Jim really well and feel he has been a great guy in the hunting industry but I have a hard time believing that a guy with 30 years of gun writing experience knew so little about AR15s. It just doesn't add up. Anyhow, sorry he said what he did and he will be missed.

Re: Good reading

03-07-2007, 01:04 PM

Hey Sheep, so much for not passing personal opinion as judgement on a public forum.

I agree with you by the way.

sheep hunter

03-07-2007, 01:32 PM

Let's make deal alta...save the personal shots for the other thread and let's stick to the thread topics on other threads...k?

osterb

03-07-2007, 02:42 PM

The guy apologized becaused his livelehood dumped him quicker than I could dump after three servings of spicy chilly. Plain and simple. I've met people like him before. He meant what he said.

kanonfodder

03-07-2007, 11:55 PM

Oh gawd I .......agree.....with......SHEEP...on this one. Someone with that much gun experience certainly had to have some bias or preconcieved notions IMO ( and Sheeps )

Tree Guy

03-08-2007, 12:59 AM

Very sad about Zumbo, but as the dust settles on this thread, and we're all left licking our wounds from a mighty battle; an amusing thought entered my head: could this be the first thread 'we' haven't gotten locked down? lol! Give 'em a couple of weeks and they'll be begging us to come back! :D :rollin :p :evil

livelehood

03-08-2007, 08:32 AM

{The guy apologized becaused his livelehood dumped him quicker than I could dump after three servings of spicy chilly.}Only Three serving's eh!:eek

I am sure that is the only reason he apologized his livelehood is gone.Hopeing someone might feel his pain and give him a job cant imagin what a elk hunt would cost these days.Life goes on:)

Tree Guy

03-08-2007, 10:52 PM

Hey nationwide, if you ever have a chance, not to bother you, but could you please enlighten us as to what it is like to have never said anything inapproiate? Have you never spoken before thinking? Have you never not regretted saying a single word in your entire life?

I grew up reading Zumbo and spent hours as a kid fantasizing about being right there with him on his many adventures. If I were to guess, most of us here have.

This man commited his life to our sport. Who here did not dream about leading the life he led? HE MADE A MISTAKE! For that one momentary lapse in judgement, a LIFETIME of working and representing hunters and sportsmen was thrown out with the trash. To suggest his apology was in order to get another job or another free elk hunt, give me a break.

Personally I think (based on the more rational posts in this thread) that his employers and sponsers missed a tremendous oportunity to have Zumbo as a moderator, and maybe highlight, educate and maybe, just maybe bring two sides of the spectrum closer together and make us all the stronger and wiser for it. It's just too damn bad they didn't. Good things could have been accomplished.