Correct: It does not take 10 bullets to kill a deer.


PDA






bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 08:35 PM
But what relevance does that have to any question concerning gun control or the 2nd Amendment?

It's not about hunting.

For what it's worth, the Constitution would NOT prohibit a total ban on all hunting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Correct: It does not take 10 bullets to kill a deer." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
zorro45
January 9, 2013, 08:40 PM
depends if it is 9mm or 45

bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 08:48 PM
depends if it is 9mm or 45

Good point.

BP44
January 9, 2013, 08:52 PM
Well, you obviously have not been deer hunting with me:neener: 10 rds just get them started running.

MacGyver77
January 9, 2013, 08:53 PM
People that use the argument of not needing more than 10 rounds for hunting don't know ANYTHING about hunting. In florida, and probably most of the rest of the country, laws for hunting limit capacity to 5 round anyway.

bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 08:55 PM
In Florida, and probably most of the rest of the country, laws for hunting limit capacity to 5 round anyway.

Yikes,
You could probably shoot this 17 foot Burmese Python all day long and still not kill it.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1135808.1344923035!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/python14n-2-web.jpg

Rob G
January 9, 2013, 09:27 PM
Well it might take 10 rounds if you were using a .22. As far as hunting in general goes, I might only load a couple for deer, but when I go hog hunting I load the whole 30 rounder. There's nothing worse than scaring a bunch of hogs out in the open and only having a couple rounds in the mag.

bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 09:34 PM
There's nothing worse than scaring a bunch of hogs out in the open and only having a couple rounds in the mag.

Wasn't there a movie about that called "The Porcine Horror Picture Show?"

MacGyver77
January 9, 2013, 09:37 PM
Yikes,
You could probably shoot this 17 foot Burmese Python all day long and still not kill it.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1135808.1344923035!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/python14n-2-web.jpg
Deer hunting at least. I know their are limits on duck/bird hunting as well. These only pertain to the amount of rounds actually loaded in the gun available to shoot without reloading. As far as I know, there are no restrictions on how many reloads or extra ammo you can carry.

EDITED TO ADD: I should have further clarified, I am talking about semi autos. No limits that I am aware of for other actions. Looking for the florida statute now.

joeschmoe
January 9, 2013, 09:40 PM
Politics is the art of speaking, while saying nothing.

Sheepdog1968
January 9, 2013, 10:40 PM
I worry about capacity when it comes to self defense as there may be more than one bag guy. For hunting capacity isn't so much of issue. Yet, in restrictive ca there is no restriction on rounds for mammals. In fact there is no law requiring hunter orange in ca. Go figure.

joustin
January 10, 2013, 10:24 AM
Capacity can be an issue depending on where and what you hunt. If you are hunting in hog country a few fast shots could be beneficial.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Pointshoot
January 10, 2013, 10:39 AM
I wouldnt get into such arguments, anyway. They put us on the defensive and give control of the argument to the other side. Instead I would bring up the points mentioned in the thread on the Michael Moore video on Drugging Our Children. Thats what has been found common in just about all of these type of mass shootings. Regards, - - -

Trent
January 10, 2013, 12:06 PM
Last I checked, it only takes one well placed shot to kill ANY beast, including humans.

Let's hope they don't figure out that the bolt actions we own are the ones which are most capable of anti-tyranny duty, or they'll go for the single shot rifles too. I mean, heck, some of those are good out to a mile (and I'm not talking 50 cal; 338 Lapua stays supersonic - and quite accurate - out to a mile).

miner1975
January 10, 2013, 12:41 PM
We r grown adult y should they b able to tell us what we can or can't own

Deanimator
January 11, 2013, 05:51 AM
Who says you need to kill a deer?

Anybody who thinks that anti-gun and anti-hunting are mutually exclusive is a simpleton.

Matthew Temkin
January 11, 2013, 06:40 PM
We do not need guns to hunt.
Nor do we need guns for self defense.
But what we really do not need is a government telling us what we need.

duck911
January 11, 2013, 10:46 PM
On a different forum, someone had said, paraphrasing:

"...so the liberal asked my why I would POSSIBLY need more than 10 rounds in a magazine. I answered, 'suppressive fire, of course'. I don't think he appreciated my reply"

There is a lot of truth in the OP's reply....

--Duck911

medalguy
January 11, 2013, 11:10 PM
I have lots of guns, lots and lots of high capacity mags, and.....well.....lots and lots and lots of ammo. But I haven't been hunting in over 30 years.

Where's any connection between the two subjects???

mister_murphy
January 11, 2013, 11:16 PM
First of all. The second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. Get that out of your head...

Second, you dont even need a firearm to hunt, nor X rounds of ammo. Talk to some primative hunters. YOU DO NOT NEED A FIREARM TO HUNT! What more can I say?

hogshead
January 11, 2013, 11:19 PM
"I would bring up the points mentioned in the thread on the Michael Moore video on Drugging Our Children." The only way I will watch that fat pig is if he pours gas on himself and lights it. I wish I owned a 500 hundred room hotel and could wake up and find him dead in every room.

Apuuli
January 11, 2013, 11:30 PM
It's not actually Michael Moore's video. He's just one of the many people interviewed in it. He also doesn't particularly say anything compared to what the MD's and others say.

joeschmoe
January 12, 2013, 12:39 AM
Does that mean I can have a single shot 20mm rifle?
10 shot .50 BMG?
A few 5lb breech fed cannons?
I could kill a deer with a 40mm mortar or two.

bushmaster1313
January 12, 2013, 10:46 PM
"...so the liberal asked my why I would POSSIBLY need more than 10 rounds in a magazine. I answered, 'suppressive fire, of course'. I don't think he appreciated my reply"

That is really funny . . . and true

How about:

Because there aren't any laws on the books limiting violent rioters intent on murder and mayhem to congregating in groups of 10 or less.

robhof
January 12, 2013, 11:03 PM
The writers of the Constitution, having just won the war against a tyranical government, knew that an armed citizen was the best Defense Against such a government, even if we voted it in!!! Thus the 2nd amendment was for personal defense, not hunting!!!:banghead::cuss::fire:

goldie
January 13, 2013, 02:43 PM
Im so sick of that "you dont need 30 rounds to kill a deer" crap.No kidding! I wish they would stop using that as an excuse...

cerberus65
January 13, 2013, 08:41 PM
Im so sick of that "you dont need 30 rounds to kill a deer" crap.No kidding! I wish they would stop using that as an excuse...

Our anti-gun "friends" love straw men so I highly doubt they'll give up on this any time soon. But I agree that it's really annoying.

Maybe we need to start putting up billboards to offer them a clue.

Next to the picture of a hunter:
"When the founders added the 2nd amendment to the Constitution the primary game animal they had in mind was tyrants."

rondog
January 13, 2013, 09:12 PM
So, a question - I'd like to use my Winchester Trapper .44 mag. carbine for deer hunting, but I believe it holds 9 rounds in the magazine tube. If CO limits hunting rifles to 5 rounds (I don't know yet if they do, never been deer hunting), does this mean I CAN'T use that Winchester? What about an Enfield rifle? Those have 10 round box magazines. What about a Swiss K31? That has a 6 round box magazine. M1 Garand has an 8 round clip, although 5 rounders are available.

I could use an M1 Carbine I suppose, I have two 4 round mags for that and both lead-nosed and all-copper Triple Shock hollowpoints. This 5-round rule seems kind of limiting. If I were hunting I doubt I'd feel the need to have more than four rounds in the rifle anyway.

What does one do if your rifle of choice holds more rounds just by default than the law allows?

I may have an opportunity to go deer hunting, but the location would dictate that the Winchester .44 would be the best choice. It's a fairly well populated rural area and shooting lanes are narrow, and long-range ammo is out of the question. But the area is over-ran with deer, and the local DOW officers work with this landowner to have him help thin them out, since he has one of the larger land parcels in the area and the most open space. He personally uses a 9mm carbine with their blessings, or a .30-30, which seems a little high-powered to me.

So, if I DO get a chance to hunt there, I'd have to use the .44 mag carbine, the .30 M1 carbine, my 9mm carbine with +P ammo, or my .40 carbine with +P ammo. But the .30 carbine is the only one that has a small capacity magazine.

bushmaster1313
January 13, 2013, 11:06 PM
In NJ you get convicted of a felony and go to jail.

With some magazine capacity bans, a wooden dowel in the shotgun magazine limiting the magazine to holding two shells is enough to make it legal for hunting.

jon_in_wv
January 16, 2013, 10:15 AM
Our right to keep and bear arms was for the maintenance of a free state. It has ZERO to do with deer hunting or any other type of hunting.

rdhood
January 16, 2013, 10:19 AM
Here is a datapoint: we constantly hear "no one hunts with an assault weapon".

I was watching one of the Alaska reality shows. There in the wilderness were native Americans shooting elk with an AR-15 (might have been an AR-10/.308 rifle). People DO hunt with semi auto "assault weapons".... and on a regular basis.

If someone took away my AR-15, they would be taking away my hunting rifle.

Tirod
January 16, 2013, 10:09 PM
Why do you need a 24 pack of beer?

Don't answer the question, ask another one. It's all about hollow rhetoric, if you have a clue who the person is, you might be able to show them two things - you know what they are asking is really just a bunch of adamant posturing, and that they have their special interest, too?

I like to use alcohol, because if they get hooked into a conversation, then the bodies come out - the thousands who die from using it. Like the 3,000 teens a year who die from drunk driving. Nothing legal about it at all, plenty of laws against it, still happens.

Then we move to "If it's good to for gun control, why don't we do the same for alcoholics? How about a three day waiting period before purchase, or a max capacity limit, like a maximum of three beers, mandatory registration of alcohol buyers, a complete ban on high powered alcohol(anything over 24%), just keep it going. It's all based on completely preventing getting drunk, and then driving.

The registered alkys have mandatory breathalyzers installed.

Don't forget - if it saves the life of just one child . . .

Kiln
January 17, 2013, 03:04 AM
Almost as bad as:

"Well anyone should be able to own nuclear bombs then!"

col_temp
January 17, 2013, 04:23 AM
Why do you need a 24 pack of beer?

Tirod, great example! I think I will steal it as well. Just goes to show you how stupid most of this discussion actually is to so many people.
I might extend it to cigarettes as well. 3 day waiting period. Limit to 2 per pack, maximum of one pack in your possession, etc....

RONDOG,
You will likely need to dig into the legal statutes. I would guess that there is some way around it.

Pilot
January 17, 2013, 04:25 AM
Depends if you use the three round burst feature on your "Assault Rifle" or not. :rolleyes:

michaelbsc
January 18, 2013, 01:33 AM
I have been using "who needs a dog? Dogs maul thousands of people a year, most of them young children. If you care about children we should outlaw dogs."

I find that's a much more emotional gut punch than beer. One can buy 4 six-packs of beer instead of a case, but no one wants to give up their dog Fluffy.

Swampman
January 19, 2013, 02:49 AM
Correct, there is no legitimate sporting need for a 10 shot semi automatic rifle to hunt deer.

BUT,
There is no legitimate nutritional need for a porterhouse steak.
There is no legitimate transportation need for a Corvette.
There is no legitimate clothing need for blue jeans.
There is no legitimate entertainment need for football.

WHO CARES!?

Taken to its logical conclusion, this "need" based thinking will eventually lead to everyone wearing unisex grey jumpsuits, eating soy based nutrition bars and watching socially responsible (whatever that means) programs on our four inch viewscreens.

I always thought that the whole point of life is to enjoy it.

daggertt
January 19, 2013, 05:32 AM
I really like the beer analogy. For what its worth, i outlined a detailed breakdown of the second amendment, its historical context, and its current application elsewhere on this site- if any of you would be interested in reading through and maybe giving some feedback.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696878

bushmaster1313
January 19, 2013, 06:58 PM
In Pennsylvana it is (or at least was) illegal to buy three six packs of beer in one purchase.

On the other hand it is a shall issue state.

If you enjoyed reading about "Correct: It does not take 10 bullets to kill a deer." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!