I always find it ironic when people say we should limit the ammunition capacity of the guns we use against criminals and tyrants to the same capacity as those we use for hunting. We limit the capacity of hunting guns in order to ensure that we have game to hunt in the future. Are they trying to ensure we will always have criminals and tyrants?
Bill Twist
July 5, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Joslin
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I like that. Soooo stolen.
Please do. Repeat it as often as you get a chance to, or my previous formulation here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2015/09/24/quote-of-the-day-dittybopper/
/Used to be a ditty bopper in the US Army
Actually, the goal is to make us defenseless against criminals and tyrants. That’s why the real goal is confiscation, not magazine size limits.
It MIGHT make the dupes and fellow travelers think twice to ask that about mag limits, but I doubt it.
Yep, the anti-gun politicians are power-hungry gangsters.
The anti-gun lobby are a mixture of power-hungry gangsters and misanthropic sociopaths.
And most of the “Civilian” gun control activists are Misanthropic sociopaths or straight-up street criminals.
So yeah, they don’t want us armed because at some level they are concerned about being shot for justifiable reasons.
Also notice they are for stripping down self defense laws to UK levels.
They are rats and roaches pushing for pest control laws.
I like it.
The answer to the question is of course “yes”.
Even the capacity restrictions for hunting are based on nothing but very flimsy reasoning. No one really objects to those, because higher capacities are not needed for hunting. I very much doubt that there is any actual research showing benefits to the game populations from limiting magazine capacity. The rebound in game populations since the depression is more the result of prosperity combined with season and bag limit rules.
All such restrictions are mostly a way to get the population used to following ever more restrictive rules.
After the first shot at a deer they are almost certainly going to be on the run anyway. When hunting birds that travel as flocks then the capacity limits may make a little more sense.
But don’t most bird laws come with bag limits?
I mean I can go trout fishing with 6 poles in the water, but I’m only allowed to land X (been a while since I got a fishing license so I forget the number, think it used to be 5) legal-size fish in a day.
So a dove hunter brings an AA-12 or a Beneli Open-class 3-gun shotgun and opens up on the first flock of birds he flushes and gets them all.
If he shot more than his bag….well I guess he can leave them to rot, but a game warden I assume can cite him for that, or he can hope he doesn’t get stopped by a warden to check his bag.
Just like the person with the 30-round AR hunting can get away with it if nobody stops to check if the mag has a limiter in it…
Sure, but a bag limit has nothing to do with a mag limit. If you’re a crummy shot, having a lot of fast shots at the target might be helpful.
St. George Tucker observed, about the British restrictions on the human right to bear arms: In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. There’s no reason to believe a mag limitation in hunting has any better justification. The fact that it isn’t a big deal for hunters doesn’t justify it, or make it Constitutional.
Exactly my point, Paul.
Dump the magazine bans, and enforce bag limit and tagging and the game population would be the better for it.
My father and his buddies had a deer camp in N.E. PA, and they occasionally made the comment that if you heard three shots, that indicated the hunter had missed his deer. Might have wounded with the first shot, but not likely. Judging by the incredible acceleration and broken field running (tree dodging) ability of a rack-bearing buck, I’d have to agree.