Responsible Gun Owners Not So Much, Typical!
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
It is not typical. This is one instance of some gun owners being incautious. To attack all gun owners as you do in your thread title, is simply careless. IMHO.
Mowich, come come now, you know all gun owners are redneck nutters, hell bent on inflicting as much damage on their surroundings, as inhumanly possible.
Unf and his sycophants say so!
Well of course I do, Bear - that is why I am constantly ducking bullets out here in the hinterland surrounded as I am by gun owners bent on death and destruction of everything in their path - NOT! LOL!
No I was just trying to make light of things since you seem to be taking it all so seriously and very personally.
Of course not, but I am at this point weighing the value of being right over keeping the peace.
We have a different quality of rednecks where I live up North than around Toronto...We had a good high power rifle range just a few miles from town but we volutarily shut it down because a skidoo trail was built a mile down range and even though we had 20 feet high dirt backstops...since the skidoo trail would be used by off-road vehicles in the summer....we moved to an abandoned gravel pit ten miles north of town.
Okay, now you are pissing me off.
When I came into possession of the Kalishnikov, it was perfectly legal, and I bought it in good faith, from a reputable dealer. The ****ing government, arseholes that they are, decided that "Hey! That gun looks naughty! Quick! Ban it"......so they did, which forced me to dispose of the weapon. So, is your problem with me that I had it in the first place, or that I got rid of it?????
Yes, we were allowed to have them. I worked selling guns back in the olden days, when you could walk into my area of the sporting goods section of Sears, and pick out a lovely .30 US M1 Carbine, a bunch of magazines, and a whack of ammunition. All that was required was that you have the money....and look like you were 17 years old. No license, no ID, no nothing required. Big deal.
My credibility on this subject is beyond reproach, and recognized by the fact that I am a qualified safety instructor for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and was a combat firearms instructor for armored car guards, and hold a non-restricted, restricted and prohibited (grandfathered) firearms license. Which means I know a **** of a lot more about it than you do.
BTW, simple appearance is the ONLY criteria the morons that run the gun registration use to judge the value of a firearm. The Kalishnikov is banned, seized....while the Ruger Mini 30 in exactly the same caliber and operation is unrestricted.....because it doesn't look nasty. My old semi-auto .308 Winchester Remington 742 is unrestricted, while my FN FAL in exactly the same caliber, and that works exactly the same way is prohibited (grandfathered). Man you need to look around you, you are onside with drooling morons. THEY have no credibility.
That somebody misused a firearm is beyond question. Although they probably don't realize it. So big deal, take some simple steps top draw their attention to it. And if that doesn't work, insist the police do something.
A complete tempest in a teapot.
So I take it you have NEVER driven faster than the speed limit. Or done anything else that might be remotely dangerous to another.
If you have, you are being a complete hypocrite.
Last edited:
Why do you need a selective fire assault rifle? Other than to kill people that is. We aren't the US and frankly I don't know why you aren't living there with your position on firearms and Canadian laws. Fully automatic military weapons have a seriously narrow use. I read that they were banned in 95 but those who had them before that were grandfathered in. If you had one before then it was grandfather in, if not, well there are a lot of regulations and banned car parts too. For a reason.
I've driven faster than the speed limit. But not 160 miles an hour faster than the speed limit. I get that some guns are part of a collection, but the problem is that some guns have the potential to be devastating when used to kill people that it's not worth allowing people to have them unless they are serving in the military in a combat zone. No one expects there to be any reasonable time that you need to kill other people. So you don't need a military selectable fire assault weapon.
Further, More common are dumb ass fools attached to a gun out shooting on crown land than not. Those who are responsible go to a shooting range and shoot safely. These assholes are shooting farms up because they couldn't be bothered with going to a proper range. What's more they post it on the Internet for other morons to do the same.
Nope. Wrong again. You seem to be on a roll with that today.
Colpy, Mowich, Das and myself, already said that.
If you say so.
All you did was just switch from big bad scary gun owners, to focusing on Colpy's AK. Then parroted what we already said.
But hey, if it makes you feel good, you can think it was an original thought of yours.
I know this is just a phase you're going through, living under the thumb of Mayor Ford, must be driving you nutty.
Once again, you reveal you're ignorance on the subject. The weapon was NOT selective fire, but semi-automatic, produced for the civilian market. Selective fire weapons were banned (and grandfathered) back in 1978. The weapon I am speaking of was banned in 1993.
The ONLY difference between it and numerous sporting rifles was its appearance. Same as the FN.
Sure. If you can find a range.
you can shoot safely in places other than a range....it just takes some common sense.
I only have what you tell me to go on so I think I deserve some leeway on the subject of you and you're seized guns.
And that it's banned.
Yeah that's what some of the street racers here say. Too much trouble to go find a race track and race safely. They too consider themselves safe drivers and law abiding citizens.
Yeah, and my point is that common sense sure isn't common among gun owners. This being simply one more example.
Yep, one. Seems to contradict your assumptions.
At least you can still count, anyways. There's something to be said for that I guess.
I know it's hard to read just now but the quote is "one more".
Run that clip again Fred!
YouTube - Funny: stupid people and guns
An article written by a Toronto Star reporter...I should have known:roll:
Found the original...with just a picture of what looks like a barn window with a hole in it...No picture of the "shooting range"....we all think of a shooting range with back-stops and shooting tables....for all we know It could be an empty field which in itself would make it illegal to start with.
No statement from the police before printing the article, just hearsay evidence from a few individuals.
Typical Toronto Star anti gun fear mongering.....not good reporting...even by northern Ontario standard!;-)
Found the original...with just a picture of what looks like a barn window with a hole in it...No picture of the "shooting range"....we all think of a shooting range with back-stops and shooting tables....for all we know It could be an empty field which in itself would make it illegal to start with.
No statement from the police before printing the article, just hearsay evidence from a few individuals.
Typical Toronto Star anti gun fear mongering.....not good reporting...even by northern Ontario standard!;-)
And you could add them all up, and when you factor in the fact that there's something like 2,000,000 rifles, a quarter million handguns, and 2.3 million gun owners, in Canada.
Your generalization is exposed as so much fluff.
I know you like fluff.
Yeah, thing about those guys with the guns, they don't like the camera so much. They probably won't shoot ya, but then again they might.