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
thebigslide said:
Well I'm not interested in starting a debate. I really hope you don't think I was trying to "dictate your decisions" whatever that means (are you a teenager?). I learned to hunt and hunted for years with a single shot and so I have some bias.
Click to expand...
If you don't want a debate, don't post in a forum where others may not agree with you.
I learned to hunt with a single shot shotgun and bolt action rifle and now bow hunt only. The difference is, I don't pass judgment on those who hunt differently than I do.
As for the personal attack , I suppose you resort to those when you are shown to be wrong in your statement which you did not address.

You're right, we don't base what people can and cannot do on whether it is "needed" and that's why I voted "yes it should be legal." This is a public forum partly for the purposes of expressing opinions. If you want to regulate free speech, this really isn't the place. If you moved to China, you could get a nice cushy government job doing that and hunt panda bears with automatic rifles on the weekends. They also have great weather and white guys get all the chicks.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is a private forum. The speech here is regulated.


When you tell me to "leave my moral judgment out of your decisions," you are both:
a) trying to regulate what I can and cannot do and
b) implying that somehow you are forced to read and accept my personal opinion as your own.
Click to expand...
a) you can or cannot do whatever you please but don't expect your statements to go unchallenged when if enough people agreed with you, everyones gun rights would be further infringed upon.
b) By you spreading your opinion on what is "appropriate" , you do force me and others to read it and accept it and try to fight it.

Don't get defensive. It's not a personal attack. If you've been offended by what I said, I really don't care and can't help you with that. The end.
Click to expand...

What you stated is offensive towards all gun owners. I didn't see it as a personal attack. None of that until the Teenager comment.
The next step to banning all semi's is to get more gun owners to see them as not appropriate or necessary. Makes banning them that much easier.
 
thebigslide said:
I have no internal quarrels stating that semi- ARs should not be restricted. I do have a different take on semi-autos used for hunting large game. Let me tell my little story.

Last fall I was out looking for a deer and I heard a bunch of shots in the distance and thought to my self - now there's some punk.

About an hour later a deer comes scrambling up the hill about 35 yards from me (I admit I didn't hear her approaching because I was sitting down at the base of a tree almost having a little nap in the dawn). She's staring right at me with her body pointing towards me and her head cocked to the side and I don't have a really good shot. All I can see is the front of her. She's standing perfectly still and I'm not sure if she's aware of me or not as there's a fair breeze and I'm not downwind and moving. She's definately spooked though.

As I click my safety off, her ears twitch and she lifts up her head and does the big sniff thing. I quickly shoulder my rifle and I take the shot and hit her just under the chin through her neck and she tumbles down, dead. It was a great shot - got my heart pounding like I haven't felt in a long time.

When I walk up to the deer, I notice there's a blood trail up the hill and all over her hindquarters. It's plainly obvious she's been shot in the leg and I remember the shots I was hearing and put two and two together. The rear quarter is all shot up and I'm a little upset because some idiot just wrecked my perfectly good tasty little doe.

About 30 minutes later, two guys walk up and notice me sitting there. One of them says "hey, you found it" and he's all excited because it's his son's first time out hunting. So I take my tag off the leg and ask them if they'd like the deer - which he does. It turns out both of them emptied their magazines shooting at this deer in a field about a quarter mile away from 200 yards and only hit her twice - in the leg and ass.

They never even offered me a quarter. So much for that tag.

That's why I'll never teach anyone to hunt large game with an autoloader. There's simply no advantage to hunting large game with one. They are more likely to jam, less accurate, and don't teach you to wait to make the first shot count. They teach a hunter that it's OK to miss because there's another round behind that one.
Click to expand...

I've seen deer shot in the ass from bolt actions, lever rifles and arrows, too. What is your point?
 
The two fellows could have just as easily let 5-10 rounds go from a Lee Enfield or an old turdy turdy in quick succession. They are poor shots no need to go blaming a semi for their poor shot selection and ethics.
 
My point is that while the government has no business regulating this matter, using an AR15 for hunting large game violates common sense.

Ranting about how an AR15 is appropriate for hunting large game makes hunters look like idiots.

Idiots are the motivation for liberals wanting to invent these stupid laws.
 
thebigslide said:
My point is that while the government has no business regulating this matter, using an AR15 for hunting large game violates common sense.

Ranting about how an AR15 is appropriate for hunting large game makes hunters look like idiots.

Idiots are the motivation for liberals wanting to invent these stupid laws.
Click to expand...
lmt-cqb16_1.jpg

AR - 15 good for small game up to coyote.

AR - 10 for everything larger in North America although I would consider a larger round for Grizzly ,Brown or Polar Bear.
lmt-308mws_1.jpg
 
Considering that the AR platform can be chambered in just about anything with modifications, why not have it for hunting????


Thebigslide That arguement falls pretty flat. Semi autos didn't make those people wound that deer, bad shooting, stupidity and horrible hunting ethics did. Don't fall in with the Fudd and gun-grabber crowd by blaming a gun for a person's fault.
 
thebigslide said:
My point is that while the government has no business regulating this matter, using an AR15 for hunting large game violates common sense.

Ranting about how an AR15 is appropriate for hunting large game makes hunters look like idiots.

Idiots are the motivation for liberals wanting to invent these stupid laws.
Click to expand...

Suggesting that an AR in appropriate calibre violates common sense in terms of hunting big game is in itself a direct violation of common sense. (Guess an AR in .458 doesn't pack enough punch for your 'game'?)

Ranting that a calibre appropriate firearm of ANY description is not good for hunting makes you look like an idiot.

People like you are the reason we can't get far ahead against gun-control, and gun-control proponents LOVE 'insiders' like you that will fight against those of us that don't agree. In the eyes of the anti's nothing beats a quote from a 'hunter' attacking other hunters desired firearms. You are too busy being a luddite to see that.

Thanks so much.

Borrowed list:
.20 Practical - Weaver Rifles
22LR - Spikes Tactical
5.45x39 - Smith and Wesson
.222 Remington - Colt
.223 - Remington- DPMS
5.56mm NATO - Colt
WSSM .223 - Olympic Arms
WSSM .243 - Olympic Arms
6x45mm by High Standard
WSSM .25 - Olympic Arms
6.5mm Grendel - Alexander Arms
6.8 Remington SPC - AR15 Performance
7mm TCU - SSK Industries
.300 Whisper - SSK Industries
.338 Lapua - Bohica Arms
.40 S&W - Olympic Arms
10mm - Olympic Arms
.45 ACP - Olympic Arms
.450 Bushmaster
.458 Socom - RRA or Tromix
.499 LWR - LWRC
.50 Beowulf - Alexander Arms
.50 BMG - Bohica Arms
 
thebigslide said:
I have no internal quarrels stating that semi- ARs should not be restricted. I do have a different take on semi-autos used for hunting large game. Let me tell my little story.

Last fall I was out looking for a deer and I heard a bunch of shots in the distance and thought to my self - now there's some punk.

About an hour later a deer comes scrambling up the hill about 35 yards from me (I admit I didn't hear her approaching because I was sitting down at the base of a tree almost having a little nap in the dawn). She's staring right at me with her body pointing towards me and her head cocked to the side and I don't have a really good shot. All I can see is the front of her. She's standing perfectly still and I'm not sure if she's aware of me or not as there's a fair breeze and I'm not downwind and moving. She's definately spooked though.

As I click my safety off, her ears twitch and she lifts up her head and does the big sniff thing. I quickly shoulder my rifle and I take the shot and hit her just under the chin through her neck and she tumbles down, dead. It was a great shot - got my heart pounding like I haven't felt in a long time.

When I walk up to the deer, I notice there's a blood trail up the hill and all over her hindquarters. It's plainly obvious she's been shot in the leg and I remember the shots I was hearing and put two and two together. The rear quarter is all shot up and I'm a little upset because some idiot just wrecked my perfectly good tasty little doe.

About 30 minutes later, two guys walk up and notice me sitting there. One of them says "hey, you found it" and he's all excited because it's his son's first time out hunting. So I take my tag off the leg and ask them if they'd like the deer - which he does. It turns out both of them emptied their magazines shooting at this deer in a field about a quarter mile away from 200 yards and only hit her twice - in the leg and ass.

They never even offered me a quarter. So much for that tag.

That's why I'll never teach anyone to hunt large game with an autoloader. There's simply no advantage to hunting large game with one. They are more likely to jam, less accurate, and don't teach you to wait to make the first shot count. They teach a hunter that it's OK to miss because there's another round behind that one.
Click to expand...

And there you go blaming a firearm for the actions of it's owner.

If they had bolt actions you could rest assured they would have chambered another round just as fast as they could. Would they have been better hunters in your mind if they just weren't physically capable of letting more rounds go?

P.S. The 21st century doesn't agree with your semi-auto complaints, welcome to it.
 
thebigslide said:
My point is that while the government has no business regulating this matter, using an AR15 for hunting large game violates common sense.

Ranting about how an AR15 is appropriate for hunting large game makes hunters look like idiots.

Idiots are the motivation for liberals wanting to invent these stupid laws.
Click to expand...

I am curious to know why you think hunting with an AR platform rifle is so objectionable. The purpose of the hunting rifle is to humanely kill a game animal. That ability to inflict a humane kill is a function of bullet design and velocity, and has nothing to do with the rifle delivering the blow. What the rifle must provide is an accurate, reliable, and convenient platform from which to launch the bullet. The AR style rifles are among the most accurate, reliable, and convenient semi-auto rifles available. Those qualities that a soldier admires in his rifle with respect to handling, reliability, durability, accuracy, and power are the same qualities that are admired by the hunter, and throughout our history, martial arms have been the natural choice for big game hunters. Rather than violating common sense, choosing an AR rifle for hunting embraces common sense.
 
.223 for gophers, 308 for deer, And a 450 for bush banging. Sign me up. thebigslide you may want to do a little reading, It sounds like common sense to me.
 
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 .
 
Considering most gun nutz didn't even have the sack to demand passage of Garry B's original C-301 (which was all about efficiency and common sense), I'm pretty sure I'll never see an AR in the field for hunting. At least, not legitimately. :D
 
fnrob said:
Personally, I want to see the FN taken off the prohib list
Click to expand...

Agreed - that's my personal preference.

And I disagree with prohib anyway. Maybe a few more hoops to jump through such as extra training, prove proficiency, even better storage, but never prohibit.
 
I personally don't think hunting with an AR is terribly objectionable. Let's back up a bit. The question this thread is about asks "Should the government take ARs off the restricted list for the purpose of hunting."

Clearly, unless a hunter has only one rifle, which is an AR, that's not a good reason.
The people for whom the thousands of non-restricted alternatives aren't good enough (for hunting) aren't the sort of people I like to hunt with. There are plenty of good reasons to take ARs off the restricted list. IMHO, hunting use isn't one of them.

I have no quarrels with the proponents of this thread who just want to carve a notch or two in their AR and are ethical hunters. That's fine, in my opinion, as hunting ethics trump everything else.

Should my tax dollars be spent creating an exception for the AR, I don't think so. I'd rather see MPs spend their time rewriting the gun laws completely.

I don't want to get into why I think bolt and break actions make better hunting rifles than self-loaders. It seems that's a fruitless debate.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom