Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678912 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 213

Thread: Gun Ban Ruled Out!

  1. #11
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    I spent my day today teaching people how to shoot, just one bathroom break from 9-4 today, it was solid, most of the people never held a gun before. I was reminded as we shot the auto-loading rifle that an AR-15 has never been used in a mass shooting in Canada, yet a Winchester model 1894 was used in a terrorist attack.

    Are you a hunter? Are you a shooter? Are you a Troll? Just trying to figure out where you sit on all of this, I mean, you are on a hunting forum I would expect that you hunt and most likely use guns for that purpose, are you ok with having those all taken away?

    Oh ya, 7 hours of shooting and not one person shot, amazing eh, that big bad rifle did not turn itself around and shoot anyone.
    OR.... just another coolade drinkin’ Liberal !!!!!

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #12
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rick_iles View Post
    OR.... just another coolade drinkin’ Liberal !!!!!
    Yeh and the rest of Canada voted us in with a majority.You fella,s might contemplate with 911 user,s on here right now why they are not all jumping in and supporting your position?

  4. #13
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbk View Post
    I always thought this is a hunting forum.
    Hunting without guns can be quite hard.........I leave bow hunting out this time.So where the Liberals and NDP woting together to ban more guns would HELP us hunters????
    It would help us hunters because the public will want action of some kind and the target is not our hunting firearms.If others want to justify having the targeted guns let them do so and explain why they need handguns and semi auto assault rifles.

  5. #14
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilroy View Post
    It would help us hunters because the public will want action of some kind and the target is not our hunting firearms.If others want to justify having the targeted guns let them do so and explain why they need handguns and semi auto assault rifles.
    Same reason you need to own that giant blood thirsty trained to kill attack dog.
    Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.

  6. #15
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilroy View Post
    It would help us hunters because the public will want action of some kind and the target is not our hunting firearms.If others want to justify having the targeted guns let them do so and explain why they need handguns and semi auto assault rifles.
    Classic FUDD comment
    Last edited by MikePal; April 14th, 2019 at 06:31 PM.
    Arte et marte (By Skill and by Fighting)...The RCEME motto

  7. #16
    Has all the answers

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilroy View Post
    It would help us hunters because the public will want action of some kind and the target is not our hunting firearms.If others want to justify having the targeted guns let them do so and explain why they need handguns and semi auto assault rifles.
    It pretty obvious the public wants no action taken against lawful gun owners. Your man Blairs report is proof. The public wants our government to police crime instead of more gun control. The long gun registry was going to stop crime, how good did that work out...lmao

  8. #17
    Borderline Spammer

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilroy View Post
    It would help us hunters because the public will want action of some kind and the target is not our hunting firearms.If others want to justify having the targeted guns let them do so and explain why they need handguns and semi auto assault rifles.
    Thank You for the reply Gilroy!

    Very interesting comments .Lets consider :
    -the Government in a bad situation (which i really hope never happens)would want to "appease the public".Why they would need to make the public happy by eliminating already hard to get firearms(Canada has a highly controlling and restrictive system-good or bad,this is what we have,and seems reasonable )Why there will be a need to make it more tough,other then gaining political brownie points?
    By now everyone who pays attention knows it is the shooter/attacker/terrorist the problem,not the implement of the terror(gun or truck,or the IED,or the pressure cooker bomb)
    If so(that is what the politicians are about)then let's be at least honest about it ,and say : more gun restrictions will not solve any problem,but hey,we will make You the public ,happy.
    -firearm owners in Canada can and should be proud of the very good report card " gun owners and the law".Hunters and firearm owners are "brothers in arms"in many ways. Why we want non hunters-but shooters or gun collectors to be penalized? Only Romans had the policy-Divide and conquer.
    -i think it was discussed here many ways,that other then in the unaware public eyes, never was such a category as an assault rifle.The term is politically motivated word,coined few decades back in the USA.
    Last edited by gbk; April 14th, 2019 at 01:57 PM.

  9. #18
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by canadaman30 View Post
    It pretty obvious the public wants no action taken against lawful gun owners. Your man Blairs report is proof.
    In fact, this report does not measure public opinion, so it can't say what the public does or doesn't want.

    All it tells us is there is little consensus among stakeholders.

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    "The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
    -- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)

  10. #19
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbk View Post
    -i think it was discussed here many ways,that other then in the unaware public eyes, never was such a category as an assault rifle.The term is politically motivated word,coined few decades back in the USA.
    Not politically motivated.

    Coined by gun magazines in the 1980s, same source that coined "assault weapon."

    So this category was originally defined by the firearms industry, and now we're conveniently forgetting that fact.



    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    "The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
    -- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)

  11. #20
    Has all the answers

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by welsh View Post
    In fact, this report does not measure public opinion, so it can't say what the public does or doesn't want.

    All it tells us is there is little consensus among stakeholders.

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    What a load of BS. 134+ thousand people have made it clear....

Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345678912 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •