Should the government take AR's of the restricted list for hunting?

Should AR's be taken off the restricted list for hunting.

  • Yes for all forms of hunting

    Votes: 401 89.3%

  • Yes only for varmint hunting and the max caliber can be .223

    Votes: 33 7.3%

  • No hunting with AR's is just plain cheating

    Votes: 14 3.1%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • Total voters
    449
burnt_servo said:
a 180 grain bullet doing 2700 fps does the same damage to what ever it is hitting regardless of style of rifle / type of action .

if the apearance of a rifle is what makes it objectionable for hunting ( or any other use ) ......
maybe the goverment needs to set up a sub comittee to see what colour we should all paint our rifles to make the general public feel safer .
Click to expand...

Well said!

Ruger Mini 14 shoots .223s yet they are non restricted. Yet the AR is. So the only difference is that one is black and one isn't. If these were people and black folks are banned to the back of the bus, wow, the politicians would have a revolt on their hands. So what's the difference?
 
victor16 said:
Well said!

Ruger Mini 14 shoots .223s yet they are non restricted. Yet the AR is. So the only difference is that one is black and one isn't. If these were people and black folks are banned to the back of the bus, wow, the politicians would have a revolt on their hands. So what's the difference?
Click to expand...

You can paint your Mini-14 black too, no problem. Don't look for logic where there is none.

And burnt_servo - Let's not advocate a politically correct "safe" colour for firearms we'd end up with them all dayglow pink.

R:d:
 
thebigslide said:
Hunters training and learning with an AR are more likely to need the followup shot. That's a strong and compelling reason for choosing an autoloader in the first place and the reason the action exists - quick followup shots. An ethical hunter should do everything in his or her power to avoid requiring a followup shot. A quick followup shot is likely not a controlled shot. I think the training argument makes itself.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is that because your using something on the AR platform to hunt with you won't make a clean kill with it on the first shot?

But yet theres no chance of a bad shot with a break action single shot with which you hold so highly?

You make no sense at all, I'd much rather have a semi auto in hand than a break action if I did bugger up and make a wounding shot than having to lower the gun, break the action, extract the spent casing, put in another one and then close the action and bring it back up to aim again. By then whatever you wounded is most likely long gone.:jerkit:
 
thebigslide said:
Hunters training and learning with an AR are more likely to need the followup shot.
Click to expand...

What data did you use to determine this?

That's a strong and compelling reason for choosing an autoloader in the first place and the reason the action exists - quick followup shots.
Click to expand...

The same can be said about a pump, lever or bolt action- They all offer relatively quick follow up shots.


An ethical hunter should do everything in his or her power to avoid requiring a followup shot. A quick followup shot is likely not a controlled shot. I think the training argument makes itself.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't "make itself" unless it's backed up with some real data. Right now it's just your opinion.
 
like the style of gun matters1

The only people who dont think assault rifles are hunting rifles are those that dont hunt......or dont like guns! They claim that AR's and other semi-auto guns are only meant for killing people and have no practical hunting applications. Groing up in ontario, every old deer/moose hunter worth his salt had either a 30-30, or an old 303. under his bed or behind his bedroom door. But i suppose those two guns were never meant for humans?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom