Correct: It does not take 10 bullets to kill a deer.
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
cerberus65
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
- Messages
- 296
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."
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
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 . . .
col_temp
Member
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.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
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.
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
Old Fart
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.
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
Member
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
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696878
bushmaster1313
Member
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.
On the other hand it is a shall issue state.
- Status
