Replies

The only rational idea (I said rational not necessarily good) concerning AR's would be to limit the magazine capacity for all hunting rifles, as is done with shotguns for waterfowl.

I made that same point about deer rifles on a hunting forum where I'd been a member for a year, once and got called an animal rights wacko... people started telling me I was anti-2nd amendment when hunting has nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights.

Also got called an animal rights wacko for suggested it wasn't a good idea for someone to kill his neighbor's annoying cat... not because I felt sorry for the cat, but because it could start a whole lot of trouble! Serve the owner with papers for the damage the cat does. But killing it would be a bad idea.

In any case, hunting and 2nd amendment are not related in anything except that we can use the same tool for each activity.

In any case, hunting and 2nd amendment are not related in anything except that we can use the same tool for each activity.

Precisely. My point is that by making them rationalize their arguments for magazine size, you trivialize their argument against AR's, because AR's aren't functionally different than any semi-auto firearm.

At least make them argue against all semi-auto weapons and all large magazined weapons, which is their real point. In this manner, more hunters will at least have their eyes opened to the fact that they are under attack as well. Even if their only concern is a selfish one, it is tactically important to defending the 2A.