And if you enter "hunters gun rights kyte" into a search engine, this article pops up EVERYWHERE.
What a coinkydink.
My response: that’s a big no can do.
And the 2nd Amendment wasn't really addressing any of these things.
“Five rounds are adequate for self-defense
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abjectly false.
Kyle Rittenhouse would be dead today if he only had 5 rounds.
I figured “Hunters gun rights” had something to do with lying on your 4473.
Probably because it’s from AP:
“The Associated Press (AP) describes itself as the largest newsgathering organization in the world. Organized as a nonprofit cooperative, AP provides news and graphics by wire to over 1,700 member newspapers and 5,500 member television and radio stations.”
How ironic, I wouldn’t really care if hunting was outlawed.
Gun safety should be ongoing classes in public schools from about grade 5 on up. It shouldn’t be mandatory but it should require a parent’s signature to opt out.
Hunters have nothing to do with self defense or prevention of tyranny. It is a stupid diversion to constantly throw hunting out there, as if the 2A was protecting hunting. What garbage.
The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting.
These folks are focused on hunting. There is nothing in the second amendment that mentions hunting.
The right to have firearms for hunting, recreation, etc. is protected by the 10th Amendment rather than the 2nd.
When you enter part of the title of an article, specifically the basic premise of the article, and the author's last name what would you expect to come up in a search? lol
They had to find hunters who are also leftards for this obnoxious article. How nice.
I was itching to find something that reads “when we hunt, we have to think about climate change and the need to plant trees after shooting these poor cute animals..”
Major crock of BS that reads like a psychology exercise.
Comprised of gun grabbing points all neatly packaged as coming from your average Joe hunter. It’s cobbled together very pretty for consumption by soccer moms who will then agree that something, these things, must be done.
The ammo limit and 5 round carry limit for self defense was too over the top to salvage any credibility.
I say it’s 100% fiction, and anonymous sources, really?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, unless you include hunting tyrants.
That's typical ammo carry for hunters, good enough for deer, but what if you are in an urban area surrounded by 20 gang members? I'd sure want more that 5 rounds.
I hunt tyrants who might arise.
Agreed. This article is BS.
Hunting Huey, Duey, and Louie is not the reason for the 2nd.
Hunting politicians - those who want to take away my freedoms and right to protect those freedoms - is the reason for the 2nd.
No where in the Second Amendment is hunting or sport shooting ever mentioned.. I’m a fud none of my weapons are included in the list of soon to be bann d weapons but one is an old worn out but still functional arisika type 99 short rifle.
Definitely a weapon of war that probably killed a bunch of allied troops.
The rest are a shotgun, rifle and a revolver. I don’t feel l the n the d for any other type weapon but I’ll defend the constitution that says very one eligible for military service and a clean record should be able to purchase one.