Other than not being able to carry assault weapons in the field, nothing I've said would stop you from owning and using your M1, unless you're a crook. Don't tell me that you don't own another weapon that is a good hunting weapon that won't alienate the non-hunting public, or make it easier, not harder, to recruit non-hunters to hunting. That doesn't violate the second amendment.
I don't know how many times I was taught in gun safety training, in hunting books and magazines, and by other more seasoned hunters since I started hunting when I was 15 (I'm 40 now) than I that you shouldn't need all those rounds in your weapon to kill your game. They were talking about guns that typically hold five rounds or less (bolt, pump or semi-automatic). If you needed all those rounds, you weren't hunting ethically because you were probably taking potshots. So why do you need a weapon in the field that holds 30 rounds ? And, of course, every fool knows that generally, bolt-action rifles, the action of most hunting rifles, are more accurate than pumps or semi-autos - they seat the cartridge tighter.
I am concerned about the future of hunting, and I think it is worth it for some law-abiding gun owners to accept regulations that won't stop them from their legitimate use of their weapons and keep or increase the support of non-hunters for hunting, and make it easier to recruit non-hunters to hunting. In case you didn't notice, the number of hunters declines in most parts of the country every year. Even in my state of Minnesota, that has an extremely strong hunting tradition and has experienced much less of a decline, there are disturbing trends, especially that hunters overall as a group are getting older.
To me, that is the issue we should be spending our most effort on, not drawing a line in the stand in solidarity with the NRA on every proposed gun regulation that gets proposed in the country, even the most minor.
Erik in Minnesota
Submitted by Erik Jensen (not verified) on January 24, 2010 - 1:04pm.
Rich -
Other than not being able to carry assault weapons in the field, nothing I've said would stop you from owning and using your M1, unless you're a crook. Don't tell me that you don't own another weapon that is a good hunting weapon that won't alienate the non-hunting public, or make it easier, not harder, to recruit non-hunters to hunting. That doesn't violate the second amendment.
I don't know how many times I was taught in gun safety training, in hunting books and magazines, and by other more seasoned hunters since I started hunting when I was 15 (I'm 40 now) than I that you shouldn't need all those rounds in your weapon to kill your game. They were talking about guns that typically hold five rounds or less (bolt, pump or semi-automatic). If you needed all those rounds, you weren't hunting ethically because you were probably taking potshots. So why do you need a weapon in the field that holds 30 rounds ? And, of course, every fool knows that generally, bolt-action rifles, the action of most hunting rifles, are more accurate than pumps or semi-autos - they seat the cartridge tighter.
I am concerned about the future of hunting, and I think it is worth it for some law-abiding gun owners to accept regulations that won't stop them from their legitimate use of their weapons and keep or increase the support of non-hunters for hunting, and make it easier to recruit non-hunters to hunting. In case you didn't notice, the number of hunters declines in most parts of the country every year. Even in my state of Minnesota, that has an extremely strong hunting tradition and has experienced much less of a decline, there are disturbing trends, especially that hunters overall as a group are getting older.
To me, that is the issue we should be spending our most effort on, not drawing a line in the stand in solidarity with the NRA on every proposed gun regulation that gets proposed in the country, even the most minor.
Erik in Minnesota