You can't hunt with a 30 round mag already, at least not where I live. The game warden would be all over you. So that's kinda a moot point. They make flush fitting 5 round mags for my M1A. Put one in, and to the uninformed it doesn't even look like a semi-auto. And no, I don't yet own a bolt action rifle. I'd have to spend a good amount of money on one for it to match the National Match M1A's accuracy and my budget is currently hurting.

You still haven't answered the question of exactly what you think constitutes an "assault weapon". Seems I was the first person in the comments to offer up any definition, but maybe you have a definition that's different from the idiots over at the VPC (i.e. a definition that doesn't include the M1 Garand and M1911). Again, where does it say in the Constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but only if the Brady Campaign thinks they're for hunting"?

Seriously, this is on par with the neo-prohibitionists saying we should ban all liqueur that's over 20% alcohol by content. Only problem with that comparison is that the alcohol over 20% ban would actually make more sense, seeing as how alcohol isn't mentioned in the first ten amendments and way, way more people are killed by drunk driving than by rifles (something like 13,000 to 15,000 a year compared to 400 to 600).

In 2008, 375 people were murdered with a rifle of any type: bolt action, pump, muzzle loader, lever, semi-auto, evil black rifles, anything. Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrta...

So again, what exactly are "assault weapons" and where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "only if the game warden will let you hunt with it"?

There's more to rifles than hunting my friend. Some of us also enjoy target shooting, among other things. Did a timed practical shooting competition one time, came in almost dead last but had fun.

And yes, I draw a line in the sand here. If someone said "I support the 1st Amendment, but I don't think it applies to Internet forums. Those weren't conceived of in the 1780s" you'd look at them like they were nuts. Would you compromise with them? What if they supported the 4th Amendment, but thought that it didn't apply to wiretaps since phones weren't conceived of in the 1780s? Would you compromise with someone who was trying to nibble away at your 4th Amendment rights? How about the 3rd? We don't really need that one anymore, it's outdated, right?

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

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

Ok I'll bite, how exactly do you differentiate between a hunting rifle and an "assault rifle"? Well, according to the dictionary (and military terms) an assault rifle is a select fire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and fires an intermediate cartridge. Ok, what does that mean in non-firearms hobbyist/armorer terms? Select fire means it has one of those nifty selector switches which has Safe, Semi, and Burst or Safe, Semi, and Auto depending on the model (uh oh, that means there's no such thing as a civilian assault rifle). The intermediate cartridge, of course, means that it fires something between a pistol round and a full size rifle round, i.e. a 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, etc. 7.62x51mm, aka 7.62 NATO, is a full size rifle round. I mention that one specifically because that's what my M1A fires. However, according to the state of CA, that M1A is an "assault weapon". Leave it to those idiots to define a 44 inch long wood stocked rifle firing a full size rifle round from a 22 inch stainless steel barrel an "assault weapon". By the way, I'd put the accuracy of that National Match M1A up against your so called hunting rifles, and it's not even a Super Match.

According to the VPC, "assault weapons" "are semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use."

Apparently those geniuses forgot that that definition includes such weapons as the M1 Garand and the M1911 (I would know, I own one of each).

Honestly, I don't understand this mis-characterization of black rifles (or my Springfield National Match M1A "assault weapon") as inherently less accurate than "hunting rifles". Many people take National Match M1As or AR-10s hunting and do shooting competitions with them.

Of course, all this ignores the fact that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but only if The Brady Campaign thinks those arms are for hunting and/or sporting". Clearly the Brady Bunch isn't familiar with competitions such as Three Gun Matches. Also, fyi, more people are beaten to death using no weapon at all than are murdered by a rifle of any kind every year in the states.

I'd invite everyone on here who harbors a skewed image of "assault rifles" to pick up a National or Super Match M1A sometime. You might fall in love. And if you went and picked up one of those Mk14 "Crazy Horse" modernized stocks for it, you could turn that same tack driver from a wood stocked beauty into an Evil Black Rifle, complete with retractable buttstock, pistol grip, and flash suppressor!

Duncan -

I think some guns should be regulated more than others is to keep the more potent ones out of the hands of criminals (Canada has such a tiered system with regard to gun regulation). Also, I don't think guns protect human rights in every situation, it depends on the political context. I think it is a ridiculous argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. Our volunteer army is going to obey an order to create a military dictatorship ? Unbelievable. Sometimes guns are useful to protect ourselves from criminals or people that present a danger to ourselves, (such as deranged ex-partners), depending on our circumstances. For me it would be ridiculous, since I have young kids and live where there is low crime and quick police response, and I have no deranged ex-lover after me. I do have friends who have needed to arm themselves for personal defense, however.

I think this exchange has revealed a divide in the potential membership base of ASHA, which I think fall into two groups: 1) People like yours truly whose main interest in owning guns is hunting, and adamantly support conservation and environmental issues. We see taking a purist line on gun regulation as detrimental to the image of hunting to non-hunters and non-gun owners. We oppose the NRA because they let their opposition to pretty much all gun regulation trump any concern for conservation and the environment. 2) Zak and you, who are close to the NRA in thinking re gun regulation, but oppose the NRA because they will not lift a finger for conservation/environmental efforts. (We have seen this again and again in Minnesota).

Both sub-groups of potential ASHA members have potential large following, neither are as organized as the NRA, with all the money flowing into its coffers... However, these groups need to be built.

Erik in Minnesota

Hi Erik-

Why should assault wepons be regulated? Because they kill lots of people? The author of the article points out that compared to cars they dont. The point of the 2nd amendment wasnt to protect hunting rights but to protect human rights. The idea was that the government would be less likely to terrorize a well armed citizenry. At the time of the writing of the constitution military wepons and hunting rifles were roughly equal (with the hunting rifles generaly being of better quality.). I think that (while I do not own a large capacity magazine rifle) that there are many concievable instances where one might be a useful tool.

"I realize there is a problem with the definition of "assault rifle", since non-gun owners or non-hunters don't understand what a semi-automatic is."

That was my point, Erik. The term "assault rifle" is a political term, not a firearms term. As far as firearms go, the list of features making one rifle ok and another not ok is essentially arbitrary.

Mainly the detachable magazine capable of holding a lot more rounds than anyone should conceive of shooting during hunting. My understanding is that usually "black rifles" hold thirty rounds. I have never shot any of my deer hunting weapons more than eight times in a day in the field - that day I killed three deer with my pump action slug gun.

Semi-automatic hunting guns typically hold five rounds, as far as I'm aware. I do not own any semi-autos, but have considered buying one for my wife, due to the lesser recoil. Personally, I'm a big believer in bolt-action rifles, my main big-game weapon is my Tikka bolt-action 30-06. They do not jam and are the most accurate. However, if my wife takes up hunting with me and our daughters, sacrificing a little bit of accuracy for lesser recoil might make some sense.

The weapons were designed with different purposes. Assault rifles, esp the AK-47, were designed with actions that seated the cartridge loosely, so they were less accurate than hunting weapons. (I do understand the technology has improved, and these weapons have been made more accuurate). The loose action was so that they would not jam in combat situations, where optimum accuracy was not important, the ability to shoot a lot of rounds was.

Hunting weapons are the opposite. Accuracy is the key with hunting rifles, shooting a lot of rounds secondary. In a few hunting situations a deer and other game will not bolt after repeated gunfire, usually young animals. Most of the time that's not the case. Of course, we all want to drop our game on the first shot. I am working on teaching my kids this, it is all about waiting for a clean kill, both for your and the animal's benefit.

Even hunting with scatterguns, typically bird or rabbit hunting, where extra rounds are needed due to the fast moving game, or flushes of multiple birds, there is a limit to where extra rounds are needed or even practical to use. In Minnesota, hunting regulations make you use plugs in your shotgun limiting yourself to three rounds during waterfowl hunting.

I realize there is a problem with the definition of "assault rifle", since non-gun owners or non-hunters don't understand what a semi-automatic is. But I still think there is a definable difference between these weapons.

Keep up the good work on other issues.

Erik Jensen
Minneapolis, MN

How would you define an "assault weapon," Eric? What's the criteria?

I am a "facebook fan" of your group, since hunting is a huge part of my life, and I own lots of guns. I want there to be a politcal force that will protect and promote hunting and gun rights from a progressive perspective. I think progressive politics is more in tune with the future of hunting and angling than the conservative side, because of the right wing's opposition to conservation and environmental protection. I am encouraged by a lot of the work your group is doing.

However, I can't agree with the positioning your group is taking on the assault weapon issue. Assault weapons need to be highly regulated, and that is all that the ceasefire group is promoting in the legislation you are attacking. They do use the words "semi-automatic" and "semi-automatic assault rifles" interchangeably in their press release, which reflects that they are not gun owners running the group. I did write them criticizing this.

But your characterization of the legislation they are pushing is off base, a little bit of NRA-type tactics. They are not seeking to restrict or ban semi-automatic hunting weapons, which is what you suggest. They are seeking to highly restrict assault weapons. I have no problem with this. Assault rifles are getting to be a problem for law enforcement, and I don't consider "black rifles" legitimate hunting weapons, and not practical or necessary for personal self-defense. Their use in the field could also alienate the broader public from hunting and make hunting suspectible to attacks by anti-hunting groups. "Gun nuts" who want to use assault weapons can jump through some serious hoops to have them and use them as far as I am concerned.

Erik Jensen
Minneapolis, MN