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

[bushmaster1313]

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.

 

[zorro45]

depends if it is 9mm or 45

 

[bushmaster1313]

depends if it is 9mm or 45

Good point.

 

[BP44]

Well, you obviously have not been deer hunting with me 10 rds just get them started running.

 

[MacGyver77]

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]

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.

 

[Rob G]

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]

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]

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

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]

Politics is the art of speaking, while saying nothing.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

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]

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]

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]

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]

We r grown adult y should they b able to tell us what we can or can't own

 

[Deanimator]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

"...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]

robhof

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: