Hunters say firearms ban didn't affect hunting season

[Gilroy]

What do you mean, "why would they", that is exactly what they've already done. There's many deer hunters now that can no longer use their deer rifles they've been using for decades, do you not realize this?

Well I guess I picked the right rifle to hunt with cause I still got mine.

[canadaman30]

Well I guess I picked the right rifle to hunt with cause I still got mine.

When they take yours, remember how much you care about others who can no longer hunt with their deer rifles. You will get the same amount of returned support for your rifles. Don't expect any...lol

[Gilroy]

When they take yours, remember how much you care about others who can no longer hunt with their deer rifles. You will get the same amount of returned support for your rifles. Don't expect any...lol

I don't expect any, have managed to live my life without getting support or needing to be a team player.

[Gilroy]

There are some great arguments made on this subject.

I think we can all agree that the typical (non hunter and non shooter) citiot does not know there is no such thing as an Assault Weapon in Canada, and in most cases does not know the difference between a restricted firearm and a non restricted firearm and the associated laws that govern their use. I really believe that a large percentage of them really feel that taking legally owned any guns, or any guns away from Canadians will somehow make them safer.

Now from my earlier post from Billy Blair - I think the Liberals have ear marked $400-$700 Million for this gun buy back program which we all know, like anything the government touches, will quickly balloon out of control. So let's call it an even $5 Billion for arguments sake (and I am being so very kind with that number). How do you think Biff and Muffy citiot will view this buyback program when they catch wind that their illustrious Liberals are giving legal gun owners hundreds millions to buy back legally owned firearms just so that we can turn around and go buy more legally owned firearms? 250,000 guns get handed in and another 250,000 guns get purchased (and this number might grow). I can almost hear their heads explode now.

Billy cannot do a PR campaign because they might have to use facts that support that this ban will have zero effect on gun crime and is nothing more than a very expensive hallmark moment paid for my the Canadian Taxpayer (yet again). I am already eying my next purchase........my semi auto rifle for a bolt action rifle or to use Liberal jargon my assault rifle for a sniper rifle.

The general public will not know that you have purchased another gun with the money you just got from the Federal government. All they know is that you no longer have one of those gun's the Federal government say's was a bad gun. So fill your boots go right out and buy that bolt action rifle and help out a small business owner. Or you could invest in the stock market and buy a stock of one of the arm's manufacturers. Either way its a win,win, situation,you suppport business and the economy and they get some tax money back.

[Badenoch]

I think the Liberals have ear marked $400-$700 Million for this gun buy back program which we all know, like anything the government touches, will quickly balloon out of control. So let's call it an even $5 Billion for arguments sake (and I am being so very kind with that number). How do you think Biff and Muffy citiot will view this buyback program when they catch wind that their illustrious Liberals are giving legal gun owners hundreds millions to buy back legally owned firearms just so that we can turn around and go buy more legally owned firearms? 250,000 guns get handed in and another 250,000 guns get purchased (and this number might grow). I can almost hear their heads explode now.

Let their heads explode. It was the cost of the gun registry that ultimately caused its demise and I agree the government estimates are far too low. Unfortunately too many gun owners are making inane arguments about "freedom" or "property rights" or that they need "assault rifles" because they are afraid of being herded into railcars.

The intelligent path for gun owners to fight these bans is to make the exercise as expensive and politically difficult as possible for the government and the arenas in which to do it are the courts of laws and public opinion.

[410001661]

The general public will not know that you have purchased another gun with the money you just got from the Federal government. All they know is that you no longer have one of those gun's the Federal government say's was a bad gun. So fill your boots go right out and buy that bolt action rifle and help out a small business owner. Or you could invest in the stock market and buy a stock of one of the arm's manufacturers. Either way its a win,win, situation,you suppport business and the economy and they get some tax money back.

Come on Terry. Even you must see the flaw in this.......the political risk is HUGE!! Firearm stock.......no sorry, not gonna happen it is way too volatile. Last year I bought Amazon, & Air Canada and they did very, very well. If your looking for a good stock might I suggest Boeing.....they are rolling out the Max 8 jet again

Imagine the headlines "Trudeau giving gun owners $375 Million to buy new guns". But I have to admit it is win/win.......if it goes through (which I doubt it will) I get a new gun and get to watch Billy and Justin walk the plank at the same time.

Imagine the video clip of an interview of a couple of gun owners saying, "yes, I handed in my AR today because they say it is bad"


......and the government gave me money to buy this gun because they say it is good"

[410001661]

Let their heads explode. It was the cost of the gun registry that ultimately caused its demise and I agree the government estimates are far too low. Unfortunately too many gun owners are making inane arguments about "freedom" or "property rights" or that they need "assault rifles" because they are afraid of being herded into railcars.

The intelligent path for gun owners to fight these bans is to make the exercise as expensive and politically difficult as possible for the government and the arenas in which to do it are the courts of laws and public opinion.

I find it funny that someone would use the term "intelligent path" and then goes to pin their argument on the term 'assault rifle'. You do know that there is no such term defined by the Canadian Firearms Legislation but many people keep on using it. Why you ask........because many people are ignorant, and lack the gray matter to wrap their head around the fact they are banning a gun because of it's looks and not it's function - a 5 shot semi-auto with a detachable mag.

Please see bottom of page #2 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/c...lnt-crm-en.pdf

How about you do this.........when you are having a debate and want to use the term 'assault rifle' swap it out with the term 'Gollywobbles'. You would sound pretty silly wouldn't you. Well that is how I see everyone that uses the term assault rifle in an argument.

I take it you have never attended, or watched a 3 gun shoot?

[Gilroy]

Come on Terry. Even you must see the flaw in this.......the political risk is HUGE!! Firearm stock.......no sorry, not gonna happen it is way too volatile. Last year I bought Amazon, & Air Canada and they did very, very well. If your looking for a good stock might I suggest Boeing.....they are rolling out the Max 8 jet again

Imagine the headlines "Trudeau giving gun owners $375 Million to buy new guns". But I have to admit it is win/win.......if it goes through (which I doubt it will) I get a new gun and get to watch Billy and Justin walk the plank at the same time.

Imagine the video clip of an interview of a couple of gun owners saying, "yes, I handed in my AR today because they say it is bad"


......and the government gave me money to buy this gun because they say it is good"

Have at it John.

P.S. They both look scary to me.

[fishfood]

Have at it John.

P.S. They both look scary to me.

Nothing scary about them they are pieces of metal and maybe some plastic.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

[Badenoch]

I find it funny that someone would use the term "intelligent path" and then goes to pin their argument on the term 'assault rifle'. You do know that there is no such term defined by the Canadian Firearms Legislation but many people keep on using it. Why you ask........because many people are ignorant, and lack the gray matter to wrap their head around the fact they are banning a gun because of it's looks and not it's function - a 5 shot semi-auto with a detachable mag.

Please see bottom of page #2 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/c...lnt-crm-en.pdf

How about you do this.........when you are having a debate and want to use the term 'assault rifle' swap it out with the term 'Gollywobbles'. You would sound pretty silly wouldn't you. Well that is how I see everyone that uses the term assault rifle in an argument.

I take it you have never attended, or watched a 3 gun shoot?

Which is why I used the term in quotation marks. In the context of the bans it is a political term not a technical definition.

Not only have I attended a 3 gun I've shot it a few times. Didn't capture my interested. Seemed like a louder version of airsoft or paintball.

The problem with some gun activists is they get bogged down in silly minutiae. "It's not an ASSAULT RIFLE dumbass!" isn't going to win the argument for them. Explaining to people that billions of their money is being pissed away to solve a non-existent problem is a better direction.