Where hunters should aim in discussing Bill C-21 on gun control

[Gilroy]

I don't see indigenous hunters being "thrown under the bus" but resented by some people because they are not under the same restrictions as non-indigenous hunters.

Gun ownership covers a wide range of uses and activities. The expectation that one group should instantly rally around another is sorely misguided. For example, if government decided to ban jet-skis it would be unlikely that kayakers or sailors would give a damn. Sport shooters should be content that people who own firearms primarily to hunt are not vocally supporting the ban on "assault style rifles" which is what the original post in this thread suggests.

100% agree.

I guess these folk's will be mad that the Supreme Court yesterday decide in favor on American aboriginal hunters now being able to cross the border to hunt on ancestral lands in Canada

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tish-columbia/


[COLOR=#2A2A2A]Persons who are not Canadian citizens and who do not reside in Canada can exercise an Aboriginal right that is protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act,” Justice Malcolm Rowe said, writing for the majority, adding that “the expression ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ means the modern-day successors of Aboriginal societies that occupied Canadian territory at the time of European contact, and this may include Aboriginal groups that are now outside Canada

[impact]

I don't see indigenous hunters being "thrown under the bus" but resented by some people because they are not under the same restrictions as non-indigenous hunters.

Gun ownership covers a wide range of uses and activities. The expectation that one group should instantly rally around another is sorely misguided. For example, if government decided to ban jet-skis it would be unlikely that kayakers or sailors would give a damn. Sport shooters should be content that people who own firearms primarily to hunt are not vocally supporting the ban on "assault style rifles" which is what the original post in this thread suggests.

Why do you insist on defending the governments confiscation of legally acquired firearms?
What is your motive?

[MikePal]

Why do you insist on defending the governments confiscation of legally acquired firearms?
What is your motive?

Well that's easy: They do it to be "deliberately provocative with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"

It's the game they play on almost every thread running.

[Gilroy]

Well that's easy: They do it to be "deliberately provocative with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"

It's the game they play on almost every thread running.

I would say that about almost every thread you ever put up. LOL

[canadaman30]

Well that's easy: They do it to be "deliberately provocative with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"

It's the game they play on almost every thread running.

The game of Troll..

[Badenoch]

Why do you insist on defending the governments confiscation of legally acquired firearms?
What is your motive?

I am neither defending or opposing Bill C-21. Just because someone is not enraged by the legislation does not mean they are defending it.

The subject of this thread is where hunter's should "aim" on C-21. The author of the article in the first post believes we should support it. I disagree with him but am not in a wild-eyed fury because a dozen or so "assault-type rifles" are being banned. There are still plenty of guns to go around.

[greatwhite]

100% disagree, I know lot's of people who would voice an opinion, but I do find you to be arrogant when you once said that as long as you can keep your guns you don't care. This is exactly why in the future guns will be banned. Even the Liberals do not deny they want to eventually ban all guns.

I don't see indigenous hunters being "thrown under the bus" but resented by some people because they are not under the same restrictions as non-indigenous hunters.

Gun ownership covers a wide range of uses and activities. The expectation that one group should instantly rally around another is sorely misguided. For example, if government decided to ban jet-skis it would be unlikely that kayakers or sailors would give a damn. Sport shooters should be content that people who own firearms primarily to hunt are not vocally supporting the ban on "assault style rifles" which is what the original post in this thread suggests.

[impact]

I am neither defending or opposing Bill C-21. Just because someone is not enraged by the legislation does not mean they are defending it.

The subject of this thread is where hunter's should "aim" on C-21. The author of the article in the first post believes we should support it. I disagree with him but am not in a wild-eyed fury because a dozen or so "assault-type rifles" are being banned. There are still plenty of guns to go around.

You never answered my question from another thread.

"So, based on your assumptions of a superior Canadian system, why are the Liberals banning guns from law abiding citizens who have been properly vetted by the government and deemed to be safe and sane to own guns?"

[impact]

Well that's easy: They do it to be "deliberately provocative with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"

It's the game they play on almost every thread running.

Yes, Lieberals are all snakes in the grass.

[Gilroy]

Yes, Lieberals are all snakes in the grass.

Oh dear, how to win friends and influence people, there goes any support from Liberal gun owners.