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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:32 PM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

18 years old, no criminal record = eligible to buy whatever gun you want. Simple as that. If you want to conceal carry then you need to qualify the same as a law enforcement officer. And if you ever use a handgun, chainsaw, hammer, shovel, samurai sword or a brick to hurt someone unprovoked, then you lose your privilege to walk among the civlized.

Sorry to tell everyone...there are NO guarantees in life. The fact that you want to go through life without crapping in your diapers should NOT limit someone elses freedom. (besides which, an increase in handguns/ar's/whatever evil gun you can imagine does NOT = an increase in violence)
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:04 AM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
. He appears to think there is someone hiding in the shadows or under his bed that is going to take all his guns.

.
Man, that is priceless. Ever hear of Alan Rock?? You really got some nerve pulling the paranoid card in this country when it comes to gun control.

"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this
country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."

- Allan Rock, then Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking aim on guns", 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:14 AM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
This comment is absolute hocus pocus BS. Here is another clear example of a person who has zero clue how to debate the issue. Rather than make rational debate worthy comments it's more of this (the sky is falling) and I presume information from his crystal ball. This guy is making remarks that he could never back up with any presetance, hard fact or evidance, his comment is pure fantasy. He appears to think there is someone hiding in the shadows or under his bed that is going to take all his guns.

Clearly he is so attached to that fantasy he hasn't realized owning a gun in Canada has actually became easier in the past two years. He also is so driven by an apparent infatuation with the boogy man coming to get his guns he doesn't even know our fight is not with the anti's. A fight with the anti's is a complete and utter waste of time and money, regardless of what we say or do they will always want guns banned. As gun owners and enthusiests our battle is actually a lobby. 100% of our effort has to be working towards the moderates, making sure we as a group maintain a strong lobby at all levels of government for the support of the moderates who are the vast majority of the electorate. Do you think the anti's are going to debate with us as gun owners, frankly they could care less about us and the apparent nut bars we harbor in our ranks. They figured out long ago the battle was not with gun owners the battle has always been a lobby effort for the support of the moderates. Win the moderates and you are winning the game. Notice I said "winning", the game will never end, it's on going has been for years and will be for years to come. We dealt them a serious blow by getting the moderates to go with us on the gun registry legislation.

Sadly it appears many on our team do not even know how the game is played, guys like this poster dream up wild schemes from apparent over active imaginations to, I guess try to scare people. It's really quite predictable, those that do not have the ability to enter the debate on the same level as the others just revert to what they seem to know best utterly unsupported dribble, just go back and read trakkers opening comment about Hitler and Stalin, you think that added to the debate..... now his side kick employs the exact same tactic, he has nothing to add except some fantasy he has dreamed up. Go back and read this guy post.....is that the guy you want leading the charge...I think not.
Hey, now that was a nice rant. I have been thinking of ways to debate it, but what's the point. You are just here to fight, so nothing I say will be good enough. As for Scrapper becoming borderline abusive, that is to be expected from someone who doesn't like to see any opinions but his own expressed. When a differing opinion is made, people like him lash out. So it wasn't unexpected that it would happen eventually.

But at least I'm not constantly contradicting myself between posts, Scrapper.

Last edited by Hagalaz; 08-08-2012 at 12:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:36 AM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Okay people, lets get back on topic.
And keep comments about other members person to yourselves please.

This forum is for sharing ideas not insults.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 08-08-2012, 07:22 AM
skinnykid skinnykid is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
I agree with you Hagalaz.

I wouldn't trust a law like that.

Anyone who has felt the weight of maintenance enforcement department on their shoulders would be very very afraid of any such law.

The thing is, if a government official decides you are of lower value then others, you're in big trouble.

And if one decides you are a threat, put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.

When government goes astray, who do you turn to?
Oh believe me, I don't support it either... I'm just askin' how it'd work...

In favor of mental health reviews? Not even...

All in all, I agree with rugatika,

Quote:
18 years old, no criminal record = eligible to buy whatever gun you want. Simple as that. If you want to conceal carry then you need to qualify the same as a law enforcement officer. And if you ever use a handgun, chainsaw, hammer, shovel, samurai sword or a brick to hurt someone unprovoked, then you lose your privilege to walk among the civlized.

Sorry to tell everyone...there are NO guarantees in life. The fact that you want to go through life without crapping in your diapers should NOT limit someone elses freedom. (besides which, an increase in handguns/ar's/whatever evil gun you can imagine does NOT = an increase in violence)
__________________
If guns kill people:
Then pencils misspell words,
Cars make people drive drunk,
And spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 08-08-2012, 08:05 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Canada already has all of the steps in place to get an authorization to carry non-concealed handguns in remote wilderness areas I had this permit for 7 years let it expire appr 3 years ago now.

My permits were good for all wilderness areas of BC & Alberta.

I am also the holder of a Utah CCW permit I took the one day course almost 5 years ago now.

Yes thats right it was a one day info course that is it.

I am missing why some of you feel that a CCW holder would need extensive training that LEO's have to take when over 1 million Americans with CCW permits do not.

You are not hearing of mass shootings or even accidents by CCW holders why do you feel it would be any different here?

I have to say that I am being continually amazed at how some of you support one aspect of firearms ownership and not an other...
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 08-08-2012, 09:15 AM
rugatika rugatika is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 17,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
Canada already has all of the steps in place to get an authorization to carry non-concealed handguns in remote wilderness areas I had this permit for 7 years let it expire appr 3 years ago now.

My permits were good for all wilderness areas of BC & Alberta.

I am also the holder of a Utah CCW permit I took the one day course almost 5 years ago now.

Yes thats right it was a one day info course that is it.

I am missing why some of you feel that a CCW holder would need extensive training that LEO's have to take when over 1 million Americans with CCW permits do not.

You are not hearing of mass shootings or even accidents by CCW holders why do you feel it would be any different here?

I have to say that I am being continually amazed at how some of you support one aspect of firearms ownership and not an other...

Actually, I have to agree with you. When I made my comment I was more thinking of a qualifying day, than intensive training. I think that most people that buy handguns and would conceal carry already have a pretty good jump on your "average" constable in training when it comes to shooting.

How often does an RCMP officer have to qualify with his gun and what is involved?
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 08-08-2012, 09:21 AM
Dick284's Avatar
Dick284 Dick284 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
Actually, I have to agree with you. When I made my comment I was more thinking of a qualifying day, than intensive training. I think that most people that buy handguns and would conceal carry already have a pretty good jump on your "average" constable in training when it comes to shooting.

How often does an RCMP officer have to qualify with his gun and what is involved?
Formal evaluations are annually.

At a minimum 100-200rounds, this includes holster un holster, varied positions 7 to 25 yds, maybe even some 50 yd stuff(instructor, and range constraints), along with stoppage drills, and shooting from the weak hand.

Many LEA's require more frequent less stringent practice session as often as quarterly, or bi-annually.
__________________


There are no absolutes
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 08-08-2012, 09:59 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
Canada already has all of the steps in place to get an authorization to carry non-concealed handguns in remote wilderness areas I had this permit for 7 years let it expire appr 3 years ago now.

My permits were good for all wilderness areas of BC & Alberta.

I am also the holder of a Utah CCW permit I took the one day course almost 5 years ago now.

Yes thats right it was a one day info course that is it.

I am missing why some of you feel that a CCW holder would need extensive training that LEO's have to take when over 1 million Americans with CCW permits do not.

You are not hearing of mass shootings or even accidents by CCW holders why do you feel it would be any different here?

I have to say that I am being continually amazed at how some of you support one aspect of firearms ownership and not an other...
I think we are all in agreement, methods of control do not affect the criminal elements access to fire arms.
I feel in canada our fire arm owner ship is based on our heritage of self reliance, hunting / trapping. in this I feel canadians should have lawful access to firearms that reflect that intention eg bolt action ,non selectable semi auto,with a capacity stated legal to hunt.
fire arms outside this classification need there own laws, the intent of such allowing enthusiasts access after training to a recognised standard. along with stringent background checks above the normal practice.
many here feel there is little difference a rifle is a rifle. I feel they are mistaken. a. 308 bolt action rifle will not cut down brick walls in seconds, a semi auto could in time with a supply of ammo. a .308, with a capacity to attain automatic fire wall is gone in seconds.
I trust the average joe hunter (most of my friends ) to be safe to the first level stated above. when given a semi auto center fire the second, third shot most often is not under proper control due to lack of experience.
if you want to play with rifles intended for the military get the training they are expected to attain.
no ones freedom is limited,I have to be licenced to a recognised higher level to drive a larger vehicle. fire arms should be no different. mho.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:16 PM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
18 years old, no criminal record = eligible to buy whatever gun you want. Simple as that. If you want to conceal carry then you need to qualify the same as a law enforcement officer. And if you ever use a handgun, chainsaw, hammer, shovel, samurai sword or a brick to hurt someone unprovoked, then you lose your privilege to walk among the civlized.
Throw in an education course to that. Some of the population who starts getting into shooting sports did not have the privelege of guidance by a parent or family member in the safe operation of firearms. Nothing wrong with that, just have an idea of what you're doing before taking a firearm off a shelf.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
Sorry to tell everyone...there are NO guarantees in life. The fact that you want to go through life without crapping in your diapers should NOT limit someone elses freedom. (besides which, an increase in handguns/ar's/whatever evil gun you can imagine does NOT = an increase in violence)
Nope, and no matter how safe you make things, it'll never be completely safe, nor should it be. That's life.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:48 PM
OneShotJohn's Avatar
OneShotJohn OneShotJohn is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Medicine Hat, Alberta
Posts: 49
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekanik View Post
Nope, and no matter how safe you make things, it'll never be completely safe, nor should it be. That's life.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...fasteners.html
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:52 PM
Tundra Monkey's Avatar
Tundra Monkey Tundra Monkey is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Prosperous Lake, NT
Posts: 5,631
Default

[QUOTE=Camp Cook] Canada already has all of the steps in place to get an authorization to carry non-concealed handguns in remote wilderness areas I had this permit for 7 years let it expire appr 3 years ago now. [QUOTE]

Unfortunately up here in the NWT the CFO will not issue one even tho they can. Why I do not know but I know guides, ex-RC's and outfitters who have tried every avenue and they all have been shot down. No idea why as it baffles me to no end. Totally ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:16 PM
skinnykid skinnykid is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 148
Default

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the only way to be able to get an Authorization to Carry (outside of LE) is to be a licensed trapper and only on their trap lines... That's not something available to everyone for wilderness protection...

Back on topic though.

I've been reading some of the other stuff going on south of the Border. And it seems to me that the biggest problem is anytime this kind of thing happens, it's knee-jerk-reations by politicians and the "anti-gunners"... There are a lot of good ideas floating around on here...

I think it's time that we become more proactive to further our rights, privileges, and interests.
__________________
If guns kill people:
Then pencils misspell words,
Cars make people drive drunk,
And spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:25 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekanik View Post
To a certain degree we're all statists. We pay taxes, we want a government to maintain certain basic services and rewards; some of us have different definitions as to what services the government should supply. That is also another level of debate.
It is not valid, IMO, to argue that consent to any level of control makes one a Statist. That is both untrue and misleading. Conservatives are not anarchists.

That is like shoving a hose down someone's throat and then telling him not to complain because, after all, he did ask for a drink of water.

Gun control cannot survive a movement toward small government. Conversely, gun control (as well as an endless list of other controls) is inevitable for a Statist. It has always been thus. It is also logical.

Quote:
There's some facts that need addressed right there. we will not be able to do that by emotional arguments, comparing pro-control. pro-abolishment people to dictators. I'd rather get those middle people on board who are reasonable as opposed to drive them away with our slogans and hyperbole. Let the guys on the other side do that; it'll only drive the reasonable right to us.
I have read many pages of facts and have myself posted many pages of facts demonstrating quite clearly that gun control is counter-productive. All of that is factual. It is also a fact that tyranny cannot exist without gun control. That is also a fact.

We have every right to question - and should question - why any government would insist on controlling the private ownership of guns in the name of public safety when such controls always result in either no measurable benefit at all or make things worse. Dr. Langmann's study in Canada was the more recent of these scholarly studies.

When those who hold, or seek, power persist in arguing that our surrender of some of our freedom will result in a better society despite failure after failure and despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, is there not some point where you begin to question their real motives? It seems to me that you must - unless you believe they are cretins. I do not. Gun Zombies are many things; stupid is not one of them. They need to be outed.

None of that is a "slogan", although I do agree it sounds odd to people who are used to a steady diet of anti-gun propaganda.

I would agree that we ought not to raise our voices, but that's it. We decide to either tell the truth or not. It's that simple. It will take a time for the truth to sink in, yes. People who are frightened lose some of their capacity to hear. If the fear is strong enough, they go deaf. I have seen this happen in urgent circumstances and I believe it also happens when the fear has been cultivated over years. Fear is fear. We must be patient. But we must never shirk from the truth of history and experience and the cold, hard facts that are available to us.

I think Rugatika, for instance, has it exactly right. If we have any sort of registry, it ought to be a registry of those who are banned from owning a firearm (with good reason). The rest of us have a right to do as we like, the right to the means of self-defence and the right to be left alone and not tracked.

Waiting periods, training, prescribed storage and background checks all sound nice, but they are all proved ineffective. That seems counter-intuitive but it is true nonetheless. I presume the occasional benefit that one would expect should come from those measures is more than offset by frustrating those who were not able to purchase or use a firearm immediately in anticipation of an attack or some violence and therefore were unarmed when the attack came. That is only an educated guess on my part as I have seen no study that would explain why those nice-sounding measures either have no beneficial effect or cause more death and victims of violence. There is no free lunch.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.

Last edited by Rocky7; 08-08-2012 at 05:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:36 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

If you work in remote wilderness areas you are eligable for an ATC I did it as a self employed free miner (prospector).

Fish Gunner your point is kind of moot you are aware that full auto firearms are prohibited in Canada there are a few that are grandfathered but they can't even take them to the range.

My XCR-L is a semi-auto rifle nothing more nothing less other than it looks like a military rifle.

and for those of you calling a military looking semi-auto rifle an assault rifle you are once again sucking up the kool-aid spewed by the anti's.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:40 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugatika View Post
Man, that is priceless. Ever hear of Alan Rock?? You really got some nerve pulling the paranoid card in this country when it comes to gun control.

"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this
country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."

- Allan Rock, then Canada's Minister of Justice
Maclean's "Taking aim on guns", 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.
Awe yes Alan Rock....that was 20 years ago I fail to see how anything Allan Rock said twenty years ago has any meaningful bearing on the debate today. I guess if anything we can take from is comments we know that regardless of what he said or believes none of it came to be law. Even 20 years ago when people were having this exact same bebate no one lost there guns, there was no ban. Point being an over reaction to any gun ban rhetoric is not a productive response. Some of the comments on here seem to suggest the gun ban is immanent, that is just wrong, some would lead people to believe some anti gun shrink is going to deem all gun owners as crazy giving the government the right to take away our guns. Frankly that is just fear mongering.

No one should under estimate the anti's lobby for stronger gun control but honestly can we at least keep it in some reasonable perspective.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:44 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
If you work in remote wilderness areas you are eligable for an ATC I did it as a self employed free miner (prospector).
Eligible, yes. But you will go unarmed nonetheless. CFO's work for the RCMP and Big Police has a vested interest in feeding gun phobias, esp. handgun phobia. There are a few exceptions; the RCMP is not one of them.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:45 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Awe yes Alan Rock....that was 20 years ago I fail to see how anything Allan Rock said twenty years ago has any meaningful bearing on the debate today. .
Agreed...there was nothing meaningful about it back then either but alot of his rhetoric was the cornerstone for the rediculous gun laws we have today and just got rid of.

Quote:
Even 20 years ago when people were having this exact same bebate no one lost there guns
You sure about that?
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 08-08-2012, 05:46 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Awe yes Alan Rock....that was 20 years ago I fail to see how anything Allan Rock said twenty years ago has any meaningful bearing on the debate today.
It has alot of bearing on the debate today. Do you really think that the gun control zealot's attitudes have changed so much in just 20 years?
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 08-08-2012, 07:04 PM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
Gun control cannot survive a movement toward small government. Conversely, gun control (as well as an endless list of other controls) is inevitable for a Statist. It has always been thus. It is also logical.
I do agree with that. Gun control cannot survive a movement to small government. Unfortunately neither Canada nor this province seems to be moving in that direction.

I do ask, whether or not you do approve of some sort of small control. Education, waiting periods, etc. personally, I believe that at some point education and proof of competency without a criminal record is enough. I throw out other ideas of control as a suggestion or conversation piece to see what's there however with other items we as a society have restricted (vehicle operation comes to mind) education and proof of competency remain my preferred methods.

You can make the argument that driver training is ineffective due to the amount of people who ignore the rules of the road. Firearm training usually does not lower the incidences of misuse due to the fact that those who are going to misuse them will not regard safe operation, handling, or legal use. however with training/education, they do not have the excuse of "well I was never made aware or told" it's a weak excuse at best, but let's just eliminate that out of the potential excuses we have to mollycoddle criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
We have every right to question - and should question - why any government would insist on controlling the private ownership of guns in the name of public safety when such controls always result in either no measurable benefit at all or make things worse. Dr. Langmann's study in Canada was the more recent of these scholarly studies.

if anyone is interested in reading it it can be found herehttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.full.pdf

When those who hold, or seek, power persist in arguing that our surrender of some of our freedom will result in a better society despite failure after failure and despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, is there not some point where you begin to question their real motives? It seems to me that you must - unless you believe they are cretins. I do not. Gun Zombies are many things; stupid is not one of them. They need to be outed.

None of that is a "slogan", although I do agree it sounds odd to people who are used to a steady diet of anti-gun propaganda.

I would agree that we ought not to raise our voices, but that's it. We decide to either tell the truth or not. It's that simple. It will take a time for the truth to sink in, yes. People who are frightened lose some of their capacity to hear. If the fear is strong enough, they go deaf. I have seen this happen in urgent circumstances and I believe it also happens when the fear has been cultivated over years. Fear is fear. We must be patient. But we must never shirk from the truth of history and experience and the cold, hard facts that are available to us.

I think Rugatika, for instance, has it exactly right. If we have any sort of registry, it ought to be a registry of those who are banned from owning a firearm (with good reason). The rest of us have a right to do as we like, the right to the means of self-defence and the right to be left alone and not tracked.

Waiting periods, training, prescribed storage and background checks all sound nice, but they are all proved ineffective. That seems counter-intuitive but it is true nonetheless. I presume the occasional benefit that one would expect should come from those measures is more than offset by frustrating those who were not able to purchase or use a firearm immediately in anticipation of an attack or some violence and therefore were unarmed when the attack came. That is only an educated guess on my part as I have seen no study that would explain why those nice-sounding measures either have no beneficial effect or cause more death and victims of violence. There is no free lunch.
To come along with this idea, to further explain my idea of slogans and weak arguments (none found in your posts btw, I just want to be clear on why and what I'm mentioning) the first knee jerk reaction can be found in a post in this thread and other. It's usually around the line of "if you're for gun control, you're along side of these dictators." or something similar.

Instead of saying these slogans, the catch phrases of guns don't kill people, all the normal things, I'd prefer reasonable discourse. Truth is, there's a kernel of truth in them, but people have heard them so many times it's a joke to most. Growing up in a church environment, the first words out of people's mouths when tragedy struck was always "god has a plan". After hearing that or any other cliche, no matter how well intentioned, it loses it's meaning and sincerity. When cliches form the crux of your argument, I think you just might have lost.

Personally, I appreciate the information and the direction towards that study. I also appreciate the honest conversation. Save for a few posts, this has been a productive discussion.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 08-08-2012, 11:16 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekanik View Post
I do ask, whether or not you do approve of some sort of small control. Education, waiting periods, etc. personally, I believe that at some point education and proof of competency without a criminal record is enough. I throw out other ideas of control as a suggestion or conversation piece to see what's there however with other items we as a society have restricted (vehicle operation comes to mind) education and proof of competency remain my preferred methods.
If it were up to me, I'd leave at a gun safety course. If there is to be a registry, it should only be a registry of the hyenas. A registry of people, not things. We have enough laws already. If your name's not on the hyena list, you can buy whatever you want. I don't know that I would urge my notions on anyone, though. If my notions cannot be supported by fact and data, then I would not want to see it become law any more than the ideers of a Gun Zombie.

I was in a store in Alaska not long ago. The old cuss behind the counter was wearing a 1911 on his hip. He felt safer, I am sure. I know I did. BTW, we got to talking and the old bugger owns 300 firearms....some of them collector Winchesters. I'd like to have seen them.

Quote:
To come along with this idea, to further explain my idea of slogans and weak arguments (none found in your posts btw, I just want to be clear on why and what I'm mentioning) the first knee jerk reaction can be found in a post in this thread and other. It's usually around the line of "if you're for gun control, you're along side of these dictators." or something similar.

Instead of saying these slogans, the catch phrases of guns don't kill people, all the normal things, I'd prefer reasonable discourse. Truth is, there's a kernel of truth in them, but people have heard them so many times it's a joke to most. Growing up in a church environment, the first words out of people's mouths when tragedy struck was always "god has a plan". After hearing that or any other cliche, no matter how well intentioned, it loses it's meaning and sincerity. When cliches form the crux of your argument, I think you just might have lost.
I understand your point but I think you also understand that there is truth in those pro-gun clichés. As for the rest, I honestly don't know. I have put in many hundreds of hours reading studies, reading the references footnoted in studies, reading the the writings of others, researching the Kookier types, etc. and I have no easy answers. Sometimes, the bullshyte seems so deep and so thick that I think non-verbal communication is appropriate.

I am absolutely convinced, however, that whatever powers of persuasion and whatever depth of knowledge each of us has, we need to resolutely draw a hard line. Of that, I am certain. We are dealing with opponents who are insatiable and who are driven to control and dominate. Guns are only part of their menu. We cannot give an inch. Not one inch. It is much too hard to win back ground that was lost.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis

(I am a big C.S. Lewis fan.)

Quote:
Personally, I appreciate the information and the direction towards that study. I also appreciate the honest conversation. Save for a few posts, this has been a productive discussion.
Indeed it has.

I think you may enjoy this article and - perhaps - add it to your library. It partly explains why I draw a hard line and hope to convince many others to do the same. It's about so much more than guns.....

http://www.nrapublications.org/index...r-happen-here/
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 08-09-2012, 01:11 AM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky7 View Post
If it were up to me, I'd leave at a gun safety course. If there is to be a registry, it should only be a registry of the hyenas. A registry of people, not things. We have enough laws already. If your name's not on the hyena list, you can buy whatever you want.

That makes more sense then any of the alternatives I've heard to date.

Personally I have no interest in assault type weapons, but I'm not bothered by the prospect of the average person owning them.
It's the nut jobs that commit all the mayhem, not the average people.

Of course there are always some individuals who slip under the radar, but there always will be, no matter what laws and/or restrictions we put in place.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:17 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish gunner View Post
lets look at the margin of error of ,what ever you want to use where ever. I want a GPMG, I want to use it in the back fourty, 200 round belt easly extended to 1000 rounds. 600+ rounds a min. a pal as my certificate of compatancy.. the boys and I head out to "plink" some small blocks. hammer down leads flying. oh. we dont know after 200 rounds she starts to cook off. all by her self. now what. 800 rounds with no fire control till the barrel melts . belt fed not in the pal course. rounds down range no one qualified to change the out come. this may be an extreme example. luckly all one needs to know is break the belt, problem solved. in the heat of the moment whats the chances some one will guess / figure that out. how do we justify tools of modern war in the hands of the public. 100 yrs ago most militaries did not even have full auto.
I'm hardly worried about the above scenario. Firstly, you are not going to see anywhere close to 600 rpm due to cooking off.

If you were using a gun that fired from an open bolt, cooking off would be a non issue.

Any one that's done any shooting at all would realize that 1000 rounds without stop, would spell the end of the barrel's life and perhaps the receiver, due to heat transfer.

It's seldom the guy that can afford to drop $5000 for the gun and $500-$1000 for a few (or 1 1/2) minutes of shooting that we have to worry about.

Those guns are out there, and up to a few years ago were taken out and shot without incident. People generally figure out how to shut it down in case of malfunction. It's not rocket science.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 08-09-2012, 03:49 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sns2 View Post
The thing is that all he has ever been doing is expressing his opinion. Respectfully, I might add.

I have not been chiming in on this thread because I am in Southern California, the land of guns and sun, with my family, getting ready to to go the beach.

Was in Cabela's in Utah two days ago and had this strange urge to buy a kit to make my 10/22 into an assault rifle
California has some pretty crappy gun laws too... Are you telling us that this kit will make one select fire?
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 08-09-2012, 04:56 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagalaz View Post
It has alot of bearing on the debate today. Do you really think that the gun control zealot's attitudes have changed so much in just 20 years?
Again as per a previous post the fight is not with the gun control zealot's, it's never been with them. The battle is always for the moderates that form the majority of the electorate. You must be able to grasp that theory, before you can understand how to stay ahead in the bebate. The anti gun supporters cannot I repeat cannot on their own determine gun control. They can only lobby the same moderates that we lobby, they can do nothing without the support of the moderates.

Don't be so freaked out by what the anti's are saying as long as there message is extreme gun owners are in the drivers seat. I hope you can understand that.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:02 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Again as per a previous post the fight is not with the gun control zealot's, it's never been with them. The battle is always for the moderates that form the majority of the electorate. You must be able to grasp that theory, before you can understand how to stay ahead in the bebate. The anti gun supporters cannot I repeat cannot on their own determine gun control. They can only lobby the same moderates that we lobby, they can do nothing without the support of the moderates.

Don't be so freaked out by what the anti's are saying as long as there message is extreme gun owners are in the drivers seat. I hope you can understand that.
I wish that were true. But we have all seen just how much support the anti-firearm people have within the government.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 08-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

[QUOTE=Tundra Monkey;1553085][QUOTE=Camp Cook] Canada already has all of the steps in place to get an authorization to carry non-concealed handguns in remote wilderness areas I had this permit for 7 years let it expire appr 3 years ago now.
Quote:

Unfortunately up here in the NWT the CFO will not issue one even tho they can. Why I do not know but I know guides, ex-RC's and outfitters who have tried every avenue and they all have been shot down. No idea why as it baffles me to no end. Totally ridiculous.
Well they weren't motivated towards getting guns into peoples hands when they applied for the job.
And apparently they weren't hired for that purpose either.

Face it the CFO's were hired to say no...whenever they can....and thats why they love their jobs.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 08-10-2012, 12:30 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

The whole restricted debacle is just one step in getting rid of a class of guns. We've seen this, we've heard this right from the horse's (or perhaps some other equine) mouth.

Make some hoops to jump through, eventually the number of hoop jumpers dwindles and we can trim a class of firearms into obscurity. 12.6, 12.7, type 97 anyone?

Thanks to the general fuddism, and apathy of the average gun owner, we've seen a pile of guns become for all intents and purposes, illegal. Once the 12.7 generation dies off, that's a pile of guns that nobody else will get licensed for. Off to the smelter, valuable history and perfectly good guns will go.

Just think of the number of prohibs that were created when 4" barrels became defacto illegal. Not to mention .25 and .32 cals.

Just after Oka, we nearly lost the AR to prohibited, and AKs went prohib. Good bye normal mag capacity.

That's a starting point. With controls in place on when and where restricted can be used, it's a short jump for non restricted as well. And don't get too attached to your semi auto duck gun.

Right now would be a good time to join NFA and CSSA and go pick up an AR (or just a receiver), and some min length pistols, if you don't have already.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 08-10-2012, 10:05 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
Right now would be a good time to join NFA and CSSA and go pick up an AR (or just a receiver), and some min length pistols, if you don't have already.
I agree. Buy a short gun and a black gun. Make a statement and have some fun doing it. Win-win.

It is also a good time to join the NRA. They cannot help us directly in Canada because the NRA constitution prohibits foreign lobbying. But the NRA is a strong Keep if our defences here are ever breached; and that is possible.

The CSSA did a good job during the Registry debate but in the process seemed to acquire a taste for favour and status with Ottawa. They were a proud participant in the recent U.N. negotiations on a universal Arms Trade Treaty and have announced to members (of which I am one) that certain "improvements" were advanced by them. I was profoundly disappointed. That is like a so-called gun advocacy organization claiming victory by announcing that it only agreed to foreign regulation of ammo that comes in black boxes. Stupidly short-sighted and unprincipled.

The NFA has a history of being inoffensive but shows some recent promise.

I trust the NRA to hold fast when the going gets tough far more than I trust either of our domestic orgs. They will be our last hope. Anyway, the NRA is a fountain of good, reliable information and fact on the U.S. "gun culture" we hear so much about in this country. It is helpful to have the facts about that.

Join them all.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 08-10-2012, 04:51 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagalaz View Post
I wish that were true. But we have all seen just how much support the anti-firearm people have within the government.
Great point but I have to respectfully disagree , my take is that the anti's have lost more ground in the last five years than ever. With all the provinces raking in record amounts of income from hunting and the shooting sports there is no province with the possible exception of Ontario that has any appetite to tighten gun laws. Even Quebec is spending a huge amount promoting the province as a hunting destination.

There will be no ground gained by the anti's in tough economic times, while I am not saying we can relax the evidance is clear the anti's are not gaining ground with repect to broad gun control. They will however milk the use of assault styled weapons in recent killings to score some points. That is why in earlier posts I mentioned it is important for us to be part of the solution rather than precieved as part of the problem.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:31 AM.


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