Post of the year! Very well stated. Just because they want to be lorded over does not mean we have to.
At post #99 in this thread you quoted the poster known as Galileo. I went back to in the thread to read the post you quoted and I could not find it. Just wondering where you found that post to quote? Maybe I just missed it. I am getting rather old.
Probably not. I noticed that they delete a lot of posts from this board. Maybe I should copy and paste replies rather than quote them.
I would have guessed more. In my experience the old Remington 700s sold as hunting rifles were just not that accurate without glass bedding, and working up a good hand load.
If you are hunting varmints, what you would choose is a high velocity, smaller projectile weapon. If the nature of the hunt required fast actions and follow up shots, you would want an autoloading, low-recoil rifle working from a magazine. The quantity of shells in the magazine is virtually irrelevant. A friend of mine who sometimes shoots long-range with me can have three bullets in the air at the same time, all hitting a 1000 yard target... with a bolt action. The record for bolt-action firing speed is 39 rounds inside a 16" target at 200 meters (over 600 feet away) in less than one minute. There was a famous pistol shooter (Bob Munden) that could draw and fire a revolver so rapidly that two shots are recorded and heard as one- and it's so fast you can never see the gun coming out of the holster. It is the shooter, not the gun, who determines how deadly the gun can be- and the weapon does not have to be a gun. Imagine how deadly a gallon jug of gasoline with a burning rag would be thrown into a crowd or room full of people. I have just completed a new rifle build, designed for backwoods hikes. It's all in a small back-pack, just 16" high- that with all accessories and the pack, including basic ammo supply, weighs 11 lbs. In that pack are three rifles in one. The primary AR build weighs under 5 pounds, thanks to parts made of magnesium, titanium and carbon fiber, and custom machining to reduce weight. It has a quick-change barrel system of my own design, which allows me to change it from 5.56 to .300 blackout caliber in just over one minute, in the field. It also has an alternate bolt and modified magazine that allows me to change it to .22 long rifle in about the same length of time. It has a compact 1-8 scope, a laser sight, and as a back-up alternate a set of side-mounted iron sights. Thus, it allows use for hunting anything from squirrel to deer in a variety of circumstances and ranges. It also can be used for defense. It so happens that the underlying purpose of every gun is the protection of your life, not the hunting of people. The only people who kill when it is not necessary to preserve life are criminals. They are the threat, not the existence of guns. It's not the capacity of the magazine that kills people. it's the mindset of the person holding the gun, thus blaming the gun means you are barking up the wrong tree. Start controlling unstable people, because guns are not unstable or malicious- but people can be. No gun ever decides to kill anyone, and never becomes a murder weapon until the wrong hands hold it. The same is true of knives, clubs and all things used to kill. The lack of a gun has never caused a person intent on killing to abandon his intent to kill. When a drunk driver kills someone, would you arrest him, or his car? Would you ban the ownership of cars depending on their brand or size of the gas tank or engine? The concept of gun control instead of controlling unstable people simply falls apart if you look at it logically.
I don’t expect an answer. I often hear GSAs advocate mandatory training for gun ownership, yet in newly a dozen times I have see it advocate and asked detail on what that a mandatory training program should specifically consist of, I have never gotten an answer. In both cases I suspect GCAs are merely regurgitating the party line and have no real upstanding of their assertions. But, I stand to be educated if it can be done. As an firearms instructor and someone who has hunted with a AR, I’d like to know what I am doing wrong.
If I may, firstly, 'control and prevention' are NOT automatically two different things . They can be yes, but to suggest they are or must be/always are different is disingenuous. Case in point most major public health or consumer safety policies involve at least a degree both of both prevention and control. As for needing your help to prevent gun violence? One, you cant ever totally prevent such deaths/injuries,instead you can only ever minimize. Two, we're actually doing quite well over here without your assistance thank you. At least the stats say we are. As for hunting with assault rifles? Can you ? obviously yes. Probably a better question is should you? I mean someone could definitely choose to run over a deer or hog with their 4 wheel drive if that's what they want to do but I'd hesitate to call it 'hunting'. So unless there is some overriding safety issue in play or the problem is vermin control (as opposed to regular hunting) I don't see the need.
Maybe it makes it more of a challenge, perhaps if you only a bolt action etc it forces you to work harder on your marksmanship? In any event was just a question not a proclamation. I know deer stalking in NZ is hard work, people pay big bucks for the chance to send days in the mountains tracking down a stag and then getting that one chance to take it down (usually at long range) with non-semis. Its a healthy business so people must enjoy the challenge.
Ah. Your perception of "challenge". So, in terms of the performance of the rifle with respect to the target, there's no reason to not hunt with said firearm. Thanks
Someone who doesn't have a sound argument behind their belief that people can't hunt with an 'assault weapon'.
With the AR platform virtually any animal in North America can be ethically harvested. Those that question that fact, or argue from the perspective of suitability do so from ignorance of the AR platform and a regurgitation of GCA myth based doctrine. But, As I have stated, I am open to being educated by someone arguing for the OP, a second call....
Oh really? Perhaps you could do me the favor of pointing to the post where I stated that 'people can't hunt with an 'assault weapon'. Oviously, there must be one.
The same thing could be said about virtually any modern firearm of suitable calibrate. Actually the whole question was poorly worded (deliberately or not) from the start. Of course you can hunt with an AR platform.
This topic makes no sense at all. First, the Second Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting. The discussion of whether or not any particular rifle is better for hunting that another is quite literally off-topic in terms of the Second Amendment. As for the Armalight Rifle, yes, it is suitable to many types of hunting and sport shooting, in many calibers and configurations. The thing is, there simply is no such thing as a sporting arm that does not have a history as a military arm. Or that lacks a military ancestry in its design lineage. A debate over suitability of this rifle design for sporting use is just plain silly, and very poorly informed.
No link and no answer on the other question I posed. Typical. Funny thing is, I know who and in what context a similar assertion was made which is the likely source for that bit of misinformation and it wasn’t in regard to hunting; but I like to be educated by GCAs, if one can, but they never do.
