Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[Ranb]

It certainly didn't impact hunting. It didn't impact shooting sports at the international or Olympic level. None of these appear to allow large capacity magazines. It probably didn't impact the silly event Cicero posted earlier, since special permits were already needed to own the fully automatic firearms used.

We should also question if a pistol event that gives a big advantage to a participant with 13 round magazine over a 7 round magazine is a well thought out sport. Restricting all participants to the same limits should result in a better competition.

So your evidence that hunters can not use high capacity magazines for hunting is? If they are not permitted, then there is a law or regulation prohibiting it. It should be easy for you to find such evidence. Show us the federal law that supports your claim.

There are no special permits at the federal level to own a machine gun in the USA. All that is required is a tax stamp and the routine ATF approval. It can be easier than getting a driver's license.

While some IPSC participants have complained about an "equipment race" in these competitions, I fail to see how rules you think are unfair has any bearing on whether or not high capacity mags are sporting or not.

Ranb

 

[Kestrel]

So your evidence that hunters can not use high capacity magazines for hunting is? If they are not permitted, then there is a law or regulation prohibiting it. It should be easy for you to find such evidence. Show us the federal law that supports your claim.

Regulation of hunting is mostly at the state level in this country. Many states do have magazine limits for hunting. Quoting the Nebraska regulations as an example.

LEGAL WEAPONS FOR ANTELOPE and DEER

Firearm Season:
rifles that deliver at least 900 ft. lbs of energy at 100 yards;
handguns that deliver at least 400 ft. lbs of energy at 50 yards;
muzzleloading rifles .44 cal. or larger;
muzzleloadering muskets .62 caliber or larger, firing a single slug;
shotguns of 20 gauge or larger that fire a single slug;
crossbows that have a draw weight of 125 pounds or more.
Semi-automatic firearms capable or holding more than six cartridges are NOT allowed.

There are no special permits at the federal level to own a machine gun in the USA. All that is required is a tax stamp and the routine ATF approval. It can be easier than getting a driver's license.

Routine ATF approval requires filling out a form and including a recent photograph, a copy of your fingerprints and documents showing that all local and state rules have been followed. Approval is required before ownership can be transfered. It certainly looks like a special permit.

While some IPSC participants have complained about an "equipment race" in these competitions, I fail to see how rules you think are unfair has any bearing on whether or not high capacity mags are sporting or not.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Regulation of hunting is mostly at the state level in this country. Many states do have magazine limits for hunting.

Routine ATF approval requires filling out a form and including a recent photograph, a copy of your fingerprints and documents showing that all local and state rules have been followed. Approval is required before ownership can be transfered. It certainly looks like a special permit.

It certainly didn't impact hunting.....None of these appear to allow large capacity magazines.

Since there are 50 states, and not all hunting is for game animals (like deer and antelope), your Nebraska example is very poor. Some states do not have any restrictions on hunting certain animals, except that a license may be needed. Try again with the evidence, if you put your back into, you might do better. Remember the word "none" in your claim? I added it from your other post into the quote above. One state that restricts mag capacity for two animals does not constitute "none".

Look here; http://test.titleii.com/form4.html , then click on the submit button and open the pdf file to see the ATF form 4. It is an "Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm", not a permit. This is the form that a person uses to obtain a title 2 gun (silencers, machine guns ect) to personally own. You do not need to tell me your version of how to obtain a title 2 weapon, I design and make them as a hobby in my garage using the ATF form 1. If the owner of the gun has the canceled tax stamp on this form, it is proof that he or she legally owns that gun. It is just a $200 stamp (or $5 for AOW's), not a permit.

Ranb

 

[Kestrel]

Since there are 50 states, and not all hunting is for game animals (like deer and antelope), your Nebraska example is very poor. Some states do not have any restrictions on hunting certain animals, except that a license may be needed. Try again with the evidence, if you put your back into, you might do better. Remember the word "none" in your claim? I added it from your other post into the quote above. One state that restricts mag capacity for two animals does not constitute "none".

I gave one example, it's not hard to find others.

Do you really believe it's sportsmanlike to use large magazines while hunting?

 

[Ranb]

I gave one example, it's not hard to find others.

Do you really believe it's sportsmanlike to use large magazines while hunting?

Remember post #200?

It certainly didn't impact hunting. It didn't impact shooting sports at the international or Olympic level. None of these appear to allow large capacity magazines.

You were implying that (all?) hunters are not allowed to hunt using "large capacity magazines". The example you provided only covered two game animal species in one state. I'm sure that when you look, you can find examples of a lack of hunting regulations pertaining to machine guns, silencers and magazine volume in some states like Texas for certain animals, especially non-game animals.

About whether or not is sportsmanlike to use high capacity magazines. This is one thing we may be able to agree on, partially. The only advantage I see to using a high capacity magazine on game is the use of a shotgun on flying birds. AFAIK, most states limit shotgun mag capacity to 2-3 rounds during duck season.

If you are referring to animals such as deer, then I see no advantage to it at all. While an unsafe and foolish person may rapidly empty an entire 30 round magazine at an animal, or group of animals, that kind of person is unlikely to score a single hit, or even worse, wound an animal and let it get away to die a slow lingering death. This is not in good sport.

On the other hand, I could use my AR-15 (in something better than 223 rem) and a 20-30 round mag. It does not mean I will take more than one shot at an animal. It has been my experience that deer run when hearing the first shot, so unless they are running straight towards the shooter, then there is little chance of a successful follow-up shot. Other hunter's experiences may vary. I have seen a Youtube video of a buck standing still for three shots from a hunter in a stand, but this is not typical.

So if I am using a 30 round mag while deer hunting, it means I am carrying more in my hands than I need to, and the longer mag is just more clumsy to deal with when shooting from an unbraced position. It is not unsportsmanlike by any stretch of the imagination. If I hunt with my ar-15 this year, it will be with a 20 round mag that is limited to 7 rounds of the much larger 458 socom ammo.

Why am I answering your questions when you don't answer mine?

Ranb

 

[gdnp]

I gave one example, it's not hard to find others.

Do you really believe it's sportsmanlike to use large magazines while hunting?

I do. If you can kill a deer with a large magazine--say Modern Bride or Computer Shopper--then I think you have earned your trophy.

There are a few reports in the English literature on the use of books for avian euthanasia, but little if anything on hunting.

 

[Ranb]

I do. If you can kill a deer with a large magazine--say Modern Bride or Computer Shopper--then I think you have earned your trophy.

That sounds tougher than using a spear to hunt pigs in Hawaii. Although I have heard that the spear hunters use dogs to get the pig and the hunter then finishes it off.

Ranb

 

[Kestrel]

You were implying that (all?) hunters are not allowed to hunt using "large capacity magazines". The example you provided only covered two game animal species in one state. I'm sure that when you look, you can find examples of a lack of hunting regulations pertaining to machine guns, silencers and magazine volume in some states like Texas for certain animals, especially non-game animals.

About whether or not is sportsmanlike to use high capacity magazines. This is one thing we may be able to agree on, partially. The only advantage I see to using a high capacity magazine on game is the use of a shotgun on flying birds. AFAIK, most states limit shotgun mag capacity to 2-3 rounds during duck season.

If you are referring to animals such as deer, then I see no advantage to it at all. While an unsafe and foolish person may rapidly empty an entire 30 round magazine at an animal, or group of animals, that kind of person is unlikely to score a single hit, or even worse, wound an animal and let it get away to die a slow lingering death. This is not in good sport.

On the other hand, I could use my AR-15 (in something better than 223 rem) and a 20-30 round mag. It does not mean I will take more than one shot at an animal. It has been my experience that deer run when hearing the first shot, so unless they are running straight towards the shooter, then there is little chance of a successful follow-up shot. Other hunter's experiences may vary. I have seen a Youtube video of a buck standing still for three shots from a hunter in a stand, but this is not typical.

So if I am using a 30 round mag while deer hunting, it means I am carrying more in my hands than I need to, and the longer mag is just more clumsy to deal with when shooting from an unbraced position. It is not unsportsmanlike by any stretch of the imagination. If I hunt with my ar-15 this year, it will be with a 20 round mag that is limited to 7 rounds of the much larger 458 socom ammo.

We share similar attitudes about proper sportsmanship while hunting. A large magazine may be legal in some states, but it's not an appropriate tool for the job.

The three shell limit on shotgun capacity while hunting migratory birds is nationwide. See (50 CFR part 20).

§ 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
Migratory birds on which open seasons are prescribed in this part may be taken by any method except those prohibited in this section. No persons shall take migratory game birds:
(a) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machinegun, fish hook, poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance;
(b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does not exceed three shells;
...

 

[Ranb]

While I feel that a large magazine for a hunting rifle is not necessary, it is not inappropriate.

Ranb

 

[FlamingMoe]

When the anti-firearm contingent confuses full automatic with semi automatic, when they advocate additoinal safety devices for firearms, but are clueless as to the existing safeties, when they want to limit the ammo capacity of magazines because that sounds like a neat deterrent to psychopathic mass murderers, then familiarity of the object of their scorn is indeed not only relevant, but obligatory.

Don't forget that they think a barrel shroud is "a shoulder thing that goes up." And a .50 BMG incendiary round is "heat seeking."

 

[Cicero]

Don't forget that they think a barrel shroud is "a shoulder thing that goes up." And a .50 BMG incendiary round is "heat seeking."

Kudos to Carlson for not letting the buffoon McCarthy avoid answering his question. Not surprising that gdnp and Kestrel are the McCarthy and Eddington of this thread.

Ever notice how the anti-firearm contingent always chooses to frame the argument as "You don't need (insert firearm/accessory/ammo here) for hunting," as if hunting were the sine qua non for the 2nd Amendment. It is odd that these folks are down with shooting game, but are outraged at the thought of people shooting tin cans, bottles, gongs, targets, junked autos, etc.

 

[Kestrel]

Kudos to Carlson for not letting the buffoon McCarthy avoid answering his question. Not surprising that gdnp and Kestrel are the McCarthy and Eddington of this thread.

Ever notice how the anti-firearm contingent always chooses to frame the argument as "You don't need (insert firearm/accessory/ammo here) for hunting," as if hunting were the sine qua non for the 2nd Amendment. It is odd that these folks are down with shooting game, but are outraged at the thought of people shooting tin cans, bottles, gongs, targets, junked autos, etc.

I suggest you take that straw man to a forum where they don't recognize logical fallacies.

 

[Cicero]

I suggest you take that straw man to a forum where they don't recognize logical fallacies.

Is that why you promote the "you don't need that for hunting" anti-firearm position in this thread because somebody told you it is a valid and logical argument? You were misinformed.

 

[gdnp]

I suggest you take that straw man to a forum where they don't recognize logical fallacies.

Beat me to it.

 

[gdnp]

Ever notice how the anti-firearm contingent always chooses to frame the argument as "You don't need (insert firearm/accessory/ammo here) for hunting," as if hunting were the sine qua non for the 2nd Amendment. It is odd that these folks are down with shooting game, but are outraged at the thought of people shooting tin cans, bottles, gongs, targets, junked autos, etc.

Always? Please explain how my quote from post 198 fits that pattern:

I think a far more cogent argument is that the effect on legitimate sporting activities caused by restrictions on magazine sizes are trivial compared to the public safety benefits. If you want to, you can argue that restrictions on nuclear technology restrict your right to start a nuclear-powered auto racing circuit. I am willing to make that minor sacrifice.

You know, there is no requirement to post nonsense just because you have nothing to say. You could read and learn instead of making yourself look foolish.

ETA: Oops. My mistake. That post included an analogy. Skip it if it is too hard for you.

 

[Ranb]

Don't forget that they think a barrel shroud is "a shoulder thing that goes up." And a .50 BMG incendiary round is "heat seeking."

That chump in the first video also has no idea what the difference is between a clip and a magazine. While it is unsurprising for some laymen to confuse them; it is unforgivable that a politician seeking to ban them has no idea what the difference is. One might think that she is stupid enough to vote yes on a stimulus bill using taxpayer money to ensure that executives who run their company into the ground get their bonuses.

A clip is a piece of metal or plastic used to hold cartridges together by the rim. Only in a few firearms (such as Carcanos and the M-1 Garand) are they used to feed ammo into the chamber. A magazine feeds the cartridges into the action so the bolt can push them into the chamber. AFAIK, no clip has ever been the subject of any ban in the USA.

Ranb

 

[Stout]

Wait, what ? In the US you can actually buy .50 caliber rifles and incendiary rounds for civilian use ?

That video was pretty funny though, shoot an animal and cook it at the same time. Efficient, I like that.

 

[Cicero]

Wait, what ? In the US you can actually buy .50 caliber rifles and incendiary rounds for civilian use ?

That video was pretty funny though, shoot an animal and cook it at the same time. Efficient, I like that.

Might be funny it were a remark by Leno, Letterman, or Stewart, instead it was said in earnest by an elected official. That just makes it scary.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Wait, what ? In the US you can actually buy .50 caliber rifles and incendiary rounds for civilian use ?

Yes. In fact, I just bought one today. The round, that is, not the rifle (sigh). It was a .50BMG bargain at $3.50 for a single armor-piercing incendiary round. I got it just for kicks.

That video was pretty funny though, shoot an animal and cook it at the same time. Efficient, I like that.

Plus it cuts down on the carbon footprint created by slapping it on the grill. Those Demmycrats should've included .50-cal subsidization in that stimulus package!!

 

[Ranb]

I just bought 1350 armor piercing incendiary bullets online, for 33 cents each. I have heard rumors that an executive order has been signed requiring DRMO to de-mill (make unusable) ammo before turning it over to recyclers. This would be bad news for hobbyists like myself who load their own ammo.

Ranb