Banning AR-15

[QUOTE=Lazinator,May 06, 2020 - 12:04 pm] [/QUOTE]
50 BMG stands for 50 cal Browning Machine Gun. No confusion at my end. [/QUOTE]
.50BMG is a caliber (cartridge), not a gun. [/QUOTE]


Yep got it. There are lots of rifles that fire the 50 BMG cartridge... Are we really arguing that? That's not my point, so obviously I haven't done a very good job of communicating. Agreed, it is a caliber/cartridge like, say, 30-06 Springfield. No argument there.

What does the BMG stand for?? But that really isn't my point, you mentioned the 30-06 being originally a military load. As I mentioned, so are many other common cartridges today. But the .303, .308, 7mm, 8mm, 30-06, etc. have all evolved or been adapted for common use as hunting calibers. 50 BMG - not so much. That's all I'm trying to say.

We could likely go on and on here. If others have a need for that type of muzzle energy, fine. I do not. If you own one, sorry.

Shame we have both had the same incident happen in the last few days... also some guy named Mike from Canmore bought a few off me last week

Guns? What guns? No guns here.....they went....away.

We could do without these comments

Banning opinions is no better than banning a gun.
I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.
Yes I do believe banning a gun is not the answer. We got Tory down here with every shooting crying for a handgun ban. While the Black lives faction cry its a consequence of their socioeconomic disadvantage.
To both I say hogwash. For all intensive purposes handguns are banned as to own one legally there is a process to be followed. The problem is life's better to be a criminal than an honest citizen, To "fix" the problem forego bail, plea bargains, and' trails make it such that the punishment using/having an illegal gun the deterrent.
Back to the AR-15 I understand the desire to limit the carnage that can be done with one and the obvious kneejerk reflex to ban 'em. Would a better compromise be, much like they restrict shotguns to 3 shells, would a magazine restriction satisfy both sides?

With that logic you might as well come over for christmas and enlighten my wife's family on the appeal of murdering innocent animals.

Its not about banning scary guns, its a stepped process to disarm the population. They cant drag you into a box car yet while you are holding a 300wm. That will be next. Even left leaning ofah came out with a semi agreeable statement for once.

xx

xx

Covid 19 a government plot?

A futuristic society that is ravaged by a pandemic that kills hundreds of thousands of people, the governments steps in to save as many as possible taking over many functions of society restricting movements and confiscating all public weapons in order to eat brains as it turns out it’s the only cure for the virus!

It must be true I read it on the www.

Is that feller scrubbing his tinfoil hat to a polish? Does that help keep JT and the Libs from listening in to your thoughts?? (he says as he reaches for finest potato brush)...

If anyone is interested in some analysis, evaluation, statistics... (rather than just shouting about how "they" are coming for us and our guns, and next "they" are going to ban everything right down to slingshots, and after that "they" will be loading you and I onto train cars for a camp in the arctic... *sigh*) try reading through the Study entitled "Do Triggers Pull Fingers? A Look at the Criminal Misuse of Guns in Canada", written by Dr. Gary Mauser.

I found reference to the study by another user on another site - I am not taking credit for it.

Very interesting read. Hint: It actually supports what most of us are saying and actually would help to unite the "hunting" vs "shooting" crowds rather than dividing. If there is an 'us' amongst those 2 groups, my personal belief is that 'we' have more credibility referencing real studies with real statistics and real conclusions rather than serving up a bunch of conspiracy theories with a heaping side of fear mongering amongst ourselves.

Despite the title - it is not a "pull my finger" type of read.

Quote “ I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.” end quote





That attitude is what is going to help the liberal ban ALL firearms ... a bolt action hunting rifle is based on a modern military rifle of a time eg (Remington model 700 is based on the enfield pattern 17 move to present day and again an ar platform rifle is based on the modern military firearm ) my ar-15 is not and never will be an assault rifle or m-16 the libs have already put language in this law that will soon prohibit bolt action hunting rifles or “sniper rifles “ they’ve also said things like it’s how we store our firearms that’s the problem they’re moving to create a centralized storage where they control when and how often you get your guns then they can just lock the door and throw away the keys if you let the government take our black rifles you open the door to them taking all firearms all firearms owners need to stand united against this tyranny and if you don’t believe simply google any interview with Blair they are 100% going for a total firearms prohibition

We could do without these comments

Banning opinions is no better than banning a gun.
I'm a hunter and not a shooter so don't understand the appeal an Ar-15 has.
Would be interested if those who own/need one enlighten me to the fascination.
Yes I do believe banning a gun is not the answer. We got Tory down here with every shooting crying for a handgun ban. While the Black lives faction cry its a consequence of their socioeconomic disadvantage.
To both I say hogwash. For all intensive purposes handguns are banned as to own one legally there is a process to be followed. The problem is life's better to be a criminal than an honest citizen, To "fix" the problem forego bail, plea bargains, and' trails make it such that the punishment using/having an illegal gun the deterrent.
Back to the AR-15 I understand the desire to limit the carnage that can be done with one and the obvious kneejerk reflex to ban 'em. Would a better compromise be, much like they restrict shotguns to 3 shells, would a magazine restriction satisfy both sides?

With that logic you might as well come over for christmas and enlighten my wife's family on the appeal of murdering innocent animals.

Its not about banning scary guns, its a stepped process to disarm the population. They cant drag you into a box car yet while you are holding a 300wm. That will be next. Even left leaning ofah came out with a semi agreeable statement for once.

Oh and the ar-15 is already limited to 5 rounds

I haven't read anything about a centralized, government controlled storage area where we "deposit" and "withdraw" our hunting guns. Kind of like books at the local library? Can you provide more details on that and a reference to where that is being planned?

Thanks,

I haven't read anything about a centralized, government controlled storage area where we "deposit" and "withdraw" our hunting guns. Kind of like books at the local library? Can you provide more details on that and a reference to where that is being planned?

Thanks,

Www.cbc.ca www.globalnews.ca
Any interview with minister Blair he mentions it specifically