Rambo Sly Stallone is for AWB

While everyone's points are valid regarding the AR and hunting, don't get drawn too far into this discussion. At least not without mentioning that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect a hobby.

The idea that it is "overkill" for self-defense is another fallacy in his statement. Self-defense isn't a sport. You are fighting for your life and possibly the lives of people you love. I don't know about you; but I'm not looking to give the fellow trying to kill me a sporting chance by using a less effective weapon or carrying less ammo.

An AR15 is easier to make good hits with, has more power than a pistol, is less likely than a pistol or shotgun to be lethal after passing through an intermediate barrier with many kinds of ammunition, and even a novice can shoot one well at household distances with minimal training. In short, it has a great deal to recommend it to self-defense and unlike Hollywood, where only the good guys never miss and the bad guys always fall down when hit, it is well-suited for the real world.

hso said:

This moronic statement is made by the ignorant and is proven over and over again to be wrong. Jim Zumbo had to be painfully schooled on hunting with AR type rifles. We should counter every claim made that ARs are not suitable for hunting at every opportunity.

Click to expand...

Then you get into the slippery slope of justifying owning an AR type rifle for hunting purposes only.
It really makes no difference whether you can or cannot hunt with an AR.

First ignore talking hollywood parrots. They hold "zero" credibility.
Second its a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. No justification needed.

Actors like Stallone and his really horrible movies just need to fade away. Its all a publicity machine given he's still making movies and by coincidence one is out now.
Ignore.

Honest question: Is it in our interests to engage in the hunting argument? Gungrabbers like to use hunting in their argument as to why evil looking rifles shouldn’t be possessed by us common folk. Their statements about ‘you don’t need a x, y or z to shoot a deer are correct. I can do just fine hunting anything around here with my old Winchester .22 and Remington 30-06, both are far better hunting rifles than an AR (and yes, I’ve hunted w/ an AR and it’s suitable, but not ideal IMHO). IMO, the 2A has as much to do with hunting as it has to do with owning an axe to chop kindling or a hoe to hill tators. The true purpose of the 2A is a great argument for keeping an AR and a handfull of 20 or 30 rd mags.

Honestly, what did you expect from him?

He's made millions portraying a psychologically damaged PTSD suffering Vietnam Vet. It makes me wonder if he ever sent a live round downrange. Certainly not as a distinguished member of our Armed Forces.

Sure you can hunt with it, and sure you can hunt successfully with it. I support your right to hunt with it, plink with it, or do whatever is legal with it.

That being said, MANY (not necessarily all and not necessarily the OP) rely too much on a quick follow-up, and don't take as much care with the first shot. I have seen it many times by many different hunters. This increases the chance of a miss or a non-fatal hit. When you know you have only one, or you will have to manually cycle the action to get a follow-up, you take more care. It's just human nature.

Secondly, no matter how fast the follow-up, the game is most likely to be on a dead run by the time you realize you need a follow-up shot. Taking one in that situation is more likely than ever to result in a miss or a non-fatal hit.

.223 is of marginal power for deer-sized game, as is 7.62X39. I'm not sure what percentage of the AR hunters out there use .308 or above, but the rest absolutely do not have better hunting weapons for deer-sized game than a bolt, lever or single shot in an appropriate caliber.

Other than shotgunning for multiple flying birds, I know of no hunting where a quick follow-up is likely to be of any advantage, except in what should be the very rare circumstance of a bad first shot followed by a game animal still standing there.


Again, I support anybody's legal right to own and hunt with anything legal. To make a blanket statement that AR's are better than manually operated actions for hunting ignores a host of variables in favor of one (perceived) advantage: the quick follow-up to a miss or non-fatal first shot.

Sure he's wrong, but that is part of the fight we must counter, and counter well.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the left has had 20 years to counter the arguments of the NRA. So throwing out the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" isn't going to work. Like I said, they have had 20 years and are putting all their effort into controlling "ASSAULT WEAPONS". Never mind that in reality they are grabbing everything. One thing Obama has done is ensure that lies are going to be more and more the norm.

We need to counter with new arguments, emotional, logical, scientific. We need more pressure on the representatives. It isn't enough just to vote this down, we need to push back for less regulation. Keep the enemy on the defensive. Keep them shoring up their flanks and they cannot attack ours.

Remember he is an elitist too..... He owns class III weapons himself, but wants to ban AR's? It is bobbleheads like these that really burn me up...

My AR isn't for hunting. It's here to protect my way of life.

It can serve many purposes, in fact, it's a great multipurpose tool.

Trent said:

My AR isn't for hunting. It's here to protect my way of life.

It can serve many purposes, in fact, it's a great multipurpose tool.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. The AR platform is a multi-tool

Also, I'll agree with Tirod's original post.

Lateck,

My 6.8mm AR is a dedicated hunting rifle that I have found well suited for both deer and hogs. I take it out more than my Thompson .270 these days.

My AR might be the most versatile gun I own. Hog's, varmint's, deer if need be, range gun, home defense and all around fun gun. Not many can claim that.

Hunting & HD

Autoloading Rifle Uses
Hunting:
I am not a regular hunter but have many friends who are. From what I understand, deer are not the only game in North America. Every anti that brings up hunting deer as the only argument against AR hunting is ignoring the abundance of other game that is taken with this type of rifle. Not to mention our American agricultural community that use these tools to protect their subsistence. Game predators and varmints include: Rabbits, coyotes, bobcats, cougars, prarie dogs, and feral pigs. Feral pigs are a runaway menace to many farmers! AR's in .308 can tackle almost anything.

Home Defense:
Its easy. What do our own LEO's choose to take on the sociopaths among us? That's right, Most departments are issuing AR's in one variation or another.
If they anticipate that an AR platform with at least one standard 30 round magazine is the best thing to take on these bad guys, I think they've done their homework. Why wouldn't I want the same thing when Iam the first line of defense? (They are minutes away)

While everyone's points are valid regarding the AR and hunting, don't get drawn too far into this discussion. At least not without mentioning that the Second Amendment was not drafted to protect a hobby.

Click to expand...

I understand your point and completely agree. However, I'd be careful about wording it that way. When the Constitution was written, hunting was far from a hobby. In fact, I feel that the almost exclusive need to hunt to put food on their tables was the very reason they didn't even mention hunting in the Second Amendment. Why would anyone take THAT away??

I'm sure you know this - we all do - but the people you may be trying to educate may not.


Now, back to Stallone. I'd be more upset about having to boycott him if his last few movies had actually been worth watching.

How do people get the idea "military style" is a bad thing? The "assault weapons" the military uses are for taking down armed opponents. They use bombs, fire, and airplanes for killing lots of people. A "assault weapon" is used against single armed assailants. And thats why I use the closest I can get to one for home defense.

Outlaw Man said:

I understand your point and completely agree. However, I'd be careful about wording it that way. When the Constitution was written, hunting was far from a hobby. In fact, I feel that the almost exclusive need to hunt to put food on their tables was the very reason they didn't even mention hunting in the Second Amendment. Why would anyone take THAT away??

I'm sure you know this - we all do - but the people you may be trying to educate may not.


Now, back to Stallone. I'd be more upset about having to boycott him if his last few movies had actually been worth watching.

Click to expand...

Stallone hasn't made a decent movie in 20 years.

Sly has never been a very bright bulb.

223 is of marginal power for deer-sized game, as is 7.62X39.

Click to expand...

I used to think this about the .243. I've changed my mind. I used to think this about the 7.62x39. I've changed my mind. I do think the .223 is marginal for deer, yet someday I may change my mind.

This past deer season my hunting buddy shot a deer with a .308 from about 40 yds. He took out a lung and a couple of ribs but the deer went out of sight. About a half hour later we tracked it. We came upon it and it was still alive. Just laying there looking at us. We discussed whether we should shoot it in the head or just slice his throat. After about 30 seconds of discussion, while standing about ten feet from the deer, the deer got up and ran away. When we caught up to it again, I took no chances. It got up and I shot at it with my 7.62x39 922r compliant Saiga. First round hit a small maple. Follow up shot put him down just before beginning in to a 1/4 mile of swamp. Like 1-4 feet of water swamp. The fast follow up shot is what kept us from getting very wet and cold or possibly loosing the deer.

I hear what you are saying about semi-auto hunters. I often use a single shot .243, but when I'm hunting an area that at most I can see 40 yds, I like to have some insurance, especially while hunting with others that may not shoot as well as I.

Who gives a damn about hunting with it? The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Point of fact, I don't think you could find an enumerated Constitutional protection for hunting anywhere. Since it isn't listed in the BOR, lets ban it.

I know its not about hunting, but how do they know what works for hunting and what doesnt? These are the same people who say things like "Assault-style weapons also include police Glock pistols with more than 10 rounds and semiautomatic weapons that can be turned into machine guns." How are they suddenly authorities on what works for hunting? When they dont know anything about guns?

I think that 7.62x39 is suitable for deer with the proper ammunition.

Kiln said:

I think that 7.62x39 is suitable for deer with the proper ammunition.

Click to expand...

Right.

7.62x39 is in a similar performance class as the 30-30. The 30-30 has taken more deer than Carter has liver pills.

Jorg said:

As I've said before regarding calling actors hypocrites for not being RKBA advocates:
"That's why I stopped watching Anthony Hopkins movies. How can he make all that money by portraying a cannibal then turn around and not eat people? It's almost as though the Hollywood types are paid to portray someone they aren't in real life."

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between playing a villian who kills people, and playing a Hero who kills people.

Imagine if Dr. Lecter was portrayed as the protagonist.

Yes, action-hero type actors who portray the use of force against evil as being good and then turn around and portray that same use of force as being itself evil are hypocrites.

If Stallone really feels that the way to stop evil is not to confront it, but rather to legislate against it, he shouldn't be allowed (or should at least reconsider) playing characters or even being in movies where the protagonist does exactly that. Movies like Rambo and Judge Dredd only serve to highlight Mister Stallone's compromised since of ethics... so does his secret endorsement of tobacco products.