Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,619
- Points
- 1,260
Jarnhamar said:Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.
![]()
Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length
Well put.
Jarnhamar said:Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.
![]()
Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length
Halifax Tar said:Well put.
Lumber said:I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).
I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles".
I was curious whether anything in that design (being a bull pup, having a tri-pod, whatever) would lend it to being advantageous toward hunting.
I mean, it looks cooler than a standard hunting rifle (at least that's my opinion), so if you can have a rifle that's good for hunting AND have it look cool, why not?
Jarnhamar said:Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.
![]()
Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length
Infanteer said:But it is black. Therefore it is an assault rifle. Therefore it is used to kill people. Therefore it should be banned. :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm. People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features. Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.
recceguy said:Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.
I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.
The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.
And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.
Lumber said:I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.
I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property? ;D
How's them for property rights.
As for Australia and Britain, they didn't outright ban their guns, so why would you expect them to get rid of all the existing guns?
Halifax Tar said:The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect.
Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name. IMHO the law should be changed.
recceguy said:We are not talking just land, but anything you own.
It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)
The RCMP Commissioner and some major municipal police chiefs don't agree that a gun ban is the solution. They want more resources to go after bad guys. Both the promised and undelivered ($300 M +) and un-promised but soon-to-be asked for. A gun ban will tax existing resources even more leaving even less money for front-line law enforcement. I think Minister Blair is in for quite a fight - from within and without - if this is the path he chooses. And, this is not the top item in his mandate letter nor the most pressing for the Liberals. He's also got irregular migration, cannabis regulation and dealing with the opioid crisis on his plate.recceguy said:Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.
recceguy said:The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.
Lawful hunters don't trespass. They'd be the ones knocking on your door to ask polite permission to hunt your property. Some will even offer money or some of the meat as thanks. Its even covered in the Ontario hunter safety course.Lumber said:I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).
Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.
recceguy said:Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.
I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.
The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.
And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.
Retired AF Guy said:While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.