Yes. That's the rationale. Waterfowl are limited take for the season and/or day. The rationale behind the limitation is to make obeying that limit easier, on the premise that you need time to retrieve and identify what you just shot.
That's rational. Rational and right are two different things. Often there are rational ideas that do not pan out. This is opposed to irrational ideas, such as "You must shoot left handed, but can have a full magazine."
Limiting magazine capacity for hunting would have little effect on AR owners. Simply have two different sized magazines, or slip in a limiter, as is done in shotguns.
I'm not advocating a limitation, I don't see a reason for it. Neither do I see a reason to be sporting. No animal that has ever crossed in front of my rifle had a sporting chance. Sporting to me equates to "less lethal", which is less humane.
The nanny says you can only have 3 shots in your gun, because this, this and this.
I can have 30 shots in my gun, but choose to only shoot 3 (obviously multiple targets), because of this, this, and this.
MOST hunters are not careless about hunting, and are careful with each other, animals, and the environment.
The nanny state chooses to assume EVERYBODY is an idiot, and only THEY (the government) are wise enough to regulate and administer.
(The above numbers were for discussion purposes only)
I think I'll write this idiot, and say that hunting with a rifle isn't sporting, and if he's using anything more modern than a simple bow, and arrows with heads made of flaked flint, then he's NOT a "REAL" hunter! Buy using his "sniper rifle," he's giving "REAL" hunters a bad name!
Mark
mountn man:
And what is the rational purpose of limiting capacity? Hit less ducks?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SampleMan:
Yes. That's the rationale. Waterfowl are limited take for the season and/or day. The rationale behind the limitation is to make obeying that limit easier, on the premise that you need time to retrieve and identify what you just shot. That's rational.
Rational and right are two different things.
I'm not advocating a limitation, I don't see a reason for it. Neither do I see a reason to be sporting. No animal that has ever crossed in front of my rifle had a sporting chance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its not 'illegal' to have a person loading one gun while you shoot another. -- So, - theoretically, - a hunter could keep up an almost machine gun rate of fire..
-- Not that anyone else would want to be anywhere near you. -- Except on a battlefield.
That's rational. Rational and right are two different things.
Which is why I hunt deer with claymore mines.
Kind of like cops and photo radar.
Sporting? Phhttttttttt!
"Sporting to me equates to "less lethal", which is less humane."
In this context, "sport hunting" as opposed to "market hunting." Sport hunters kill one or a few animals while market hunters kill dozens or hundreds.