I was reading the thread about five hunters killed, and allegedly the firearm was an SKS, of which some posters declared "assult weopons" shooters are not hunters.
Isn't this exactly what the anti-gun folks said before? They said "assult weopons" are not hunting guns, thus they should be banned. Knowing this, and what some posters here said of it, then I figure we are all supposed to just give up owning "assult weopons" simply based on their design?
I'm not sure how the outward design/look of a firearm is supposed to make it a man killer only, and unsuitable as a deer killer (bullets kill, not the design), but appearanly some folks sure do!
Are we to ban semi-auto loaders of every kind, after all "assult weopons" are of this action type)?
Exactly what firearm type is required to take a deer?
If a person desides to use an auto loader, regardless of make or model, then that should their business. It doesn't make them any lesser of a hunter as compared to anyone else using a different action type.

This isn't about defending the criminal acts of this guy. Should he be found guilty, then fry him.

Instead, this is about declaring "assult weopons" unsuitable for hunting, which must be based on the action design and look, because there are "regular" guns chamberd in 223, 7.62x39, 308, etc. used for hunting, so therefore I make the connection between the outward appearance of a gun and it's preceived unsuitability as a deer killer, not the cartride used.
What might be your take on the assumption that "assult weopons" not being suitable as hunting guns? ('Assult weopons' is an anti-gun phrase, used to forward their adgenda. Don't buy into it.) ~~~Suluuq

Once I thought of saving up money for a FAL rifle. And I would be able to put in a five round magazine and hunt plus have a cool combat rifle without having to buy two guns.

I guess this will be really frowned upon after this incident...

It has nothing to do with the weapon used. During all this there is more talk about the weapon then the shooter. The liberals in the press would rather blame the gun then the shooter.

PDS:

Also don't leave out the fact that the "Liberal press" has already started stating that this happened based on the cultural difference of his Hmong culture and ours. These liberal assholes are already searching for and coming up with excuses of why Chan Ving is some sort of victim that drove to doing this act.

If he would have shot 5 PETA people, or 5 of these liberal press people, then give him a Cigar and call it a day. ( Just kidding, but it sure is close to how I feel after I get pissed at reading the way they write this stuff!)

Can you imagine how different this would have read in the news if some Wisconsin farmer had told this Hmong to get off of his land and when he didn't, had shot the Hmong? Much less shooting 5 of his family who had come to his aid.

These people have been getting away with crap for too long in this country. they did not arrive from SE Asia last week. They have no concept of being law abiding Americans because liberals are always making excuses for them. The poor down trodded Hmong refugees, who have no place to go and no homeland.

" Welcome to America! Come do what the hell you want to do. We have all sorts of welfare money available if you don't want to work.... Even if you don't want to speak the language we will sell you a hunting license. But if you don't want to buy a hunting license, you can go hunt anyway, because you are disadvantaged.

Oh if you accidently intentionally kill 5 people, don't worry about it. We have an organization called the ACLU that will make everything okay. Besides our press can convince the public that it was really the local peoples fault you had to kill them. How dare they buy land and think it is theirs and think they can tell some poor disadvantaged Asian he has to leave.

Welcome to America!" Courtesy of Hillary & Bill Clinton & friends.

seafire

I've hunted several times with what the Liberals call assault weapons. They worked as well as a bolt action in the same caliber.

I couldn't care less if they banned "assault weapons". I've never owned one and aren't interested in them. The only proximity to them I've had is having some GI-wanna-bee firing at the range putting hot hulls all over the person beside him. Me. I just assumed all owners of these weapons were rude, not necessarily dangerous.

I couldn't care less if they banned "assault weapons". I've never owned one and aren't interested in them.



I won't bore you with the path to Australia's gun laws!!!



I have zero interest in that sort of stuff myself but they are the first line of defence for your bolt actions. Just imagine if the shooter could not have bought a cheap shitty SKS with shitty ammo and instead purchase a used cheap Howa in 300 Winchester and shot those other shooters with some 150 grain Power Point ammo. Real messy stuff.



Be thankful that sort of cheap shit and ammo is there.



Mike

I simply dislike "assault rifles"--they're ugly and they were designed to kill as much as possible in short periods of time. I completely support ownership and use of these types of weapons for sporting and self-defense purposes. It is a Constitutional right. The vast majority of hunters I have encountered using semi auto rifles for hunting were poor hunters, poor shooters, and unsafe. That reflects on all hunters. But that is a commentary on the people who make poor choices and not the weapon type. Two of the best hunters and shooters I know use BAR's and Rem semi autos exclusively. I have not met another big game hunter in the last 40 years of hunting who was carrying an AR or SKS type rifle, but if someone wishes to use them for hunting, then I say use them. The only reason to ban these weapons is because those who abuse power know they cannot impose their agenda on others if others are armed to the teeth. Perhaps all of us should own at least one and a few thousand rounds of ammo to feed it! FWIW, I dislike the label "assault weapon" also. It is a manipulative and misleading term.

We use them (autoloading carbines in military styles and calibers that others would call AW's, I refuse to even type the words!) quite regularly for controlling feral pigs. I assume the same could be true for any sort of predator/nuisance control work.

Does that still count as 'hunting' to some of you?

So after you ban "semi- automatic assault rifles", do you then ban the even more deadly "bolt action sniper rifles?"

Bowhunter, what you said was certainly worth repeating.

Before you folks get too far afield in describing what an "assault rifle" is, let me remind you: THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT, REPEAT NOT, HAVE A SINGLE GODDAMN THING TO DO WITH HUNTING!!!!! It has to do with your right to protect your family, home and country.

I've got no problem with that, I own an SKS, and you won't see me taking it into the deer woods any time soon. It's just to inaccurate for my tastes. Hunting is a regulated activity, and in most states it's a privelidge. The type of weapon that can be used must be regulated, or there will always be somebody using dangerous and/or unsporting means to take game.

I honestly don't have much of a problem with using semi-autos for hunting, but it must be admitted that they make it a lot easier for idiots to blaze away in an unsafe manner.

Banning so called "assault weapons" outright or prohibiting people from owning them is one thing, but disallowing their use in the hunting fields is entirely another, and isn't, in my opinion, even close to a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If it was, shotgun only deer hunting, caliber restrictions, and a lot of other rules that are there for the common good would be out the window.

Most hunters I know have nothing to do with any kind of semi-auto rifle - it just is not practical for our kind of hunting.

As others have stated, the Second Ammendment is not about hunting, but it is about the tools available for hunting.
I personally have no use for a semi-auto rifle, but I understand it is the easiest for the anti-gun lobby to gain a foothold with (currently). To me the next logical step if they have continued success with "Assault" rifles will be "Sniper" rifles - and when they define what each of these means, say goodbye to your Remington 700. Toss in PETA putting the "maiming of animals with razorblades" on the ballot and your archery hunting is gone.
Where does it end now that it begins?

I figure it is good enough that we have outlawed murder - no matter what the tool used.

I wouldn't hunt varmints w/ an SKS, but I have no problem w/ guys using appropriate carts. in an "assault" style rifel. I have friends who often hunt w/ their M1A1 & are just as effective as the bolt guys. Support the right for us to own combat style rifles, even if you "sont' care for them". Remember, the libs think bolt action hunting rifles are "sniper rifles".

I agree, and am entirely pro-A2. I have no problem with citizens owning assault-type weapons, or even fully auto (if properly qualified).

I, as a hunter, care about what I have to face when I am out in the woods. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing tighter firearms restrictions for deer hunting purposes...

It is not a slippery slope but rather different layers.

I can absolutely assure you that all the shooters in Australia who had views similar to yourself now deeply regret those views. One of the problems is that when you tear off one layer you also tear up pieces of the next layer.

You will also find that if you write down all the reasons that you advocate what you do I think you will find that you have automatically endorsed some other controls which you might not like.

Mike

Actually, The Second has nothing to do with protection of self or home either. It applies only to protection of country/liberties. In any case, hunting has nothing to do with the Second.

Wes

My brother uses a H & K 91(semi auto G3 in .308) with a 5 round magazine for deer hunting. It is his only centerfire rifle. I often use an AR-15 for shooting groundhogs and pests. This so called "assult rifles" have sporting use in my opinion.

What you have to ask yourself is"If you give the liberals one type,will they stop there?"

Liberal cocksuckers love to cry about "assault weapons". They'll be crying for the assault weapons ban to be reinstated now.

The real problem is immigration. If gook cocksuckers weren't allowed to be in america and have hunting and shooting rights this wouldn't have happened.

Layers, slippery slope, call it what you like. It is simply a "logical" device used to mobilize an extremist stance on and dire pessimism about the future of an issue. If this slippery slope were in fact true, why then have we not EVER converged to EITHER extreme in the last 250 years?

Here's an example. A few years ago an anti-sodomy law in TX was struck down. Conservatives, using the slippery slope mentality, thought for sure this spelled the end of hetero-only marriage. However, forcing this issue to the front pages suddenly made main stream America tackle this issue. The result: referendums in about a dozen state (yes, some blue states even) banning same-sex marriage. All won by landslides I might add.

There is an unwritten law of increasing resistance to extreme ideas. Call it naivete if you like.

Tell me about the AU equivalent to our Constitution. What does it have to say about firearms? Do you think AU is built on the same tradition of defiance and inherent distrust of government as is the USA?

Wes, I might be splitting hairs and that is not my intent but I do have to take some exception to your statement about the second amendment. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is directed at the citizens right to protect the state and union as well as to protect himself from the state and the union. My home and citizenship are part thereof and thus are indeed protected by the second amendment. While there are a lot of wild opinions about this IMO it is critical to remember the time frame that the Constitution was drafted. Our founding fathers gave life to this document as we prepared to overthrow a oppresive government. The Constitution can not be dissected. One can not pick and choose how he would like to use it any more than I could choose to remove your heart or brain and still have you be a viable entity.

In the words of Ben Franklin " Those who give up a essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety ".

I do not own or use assault weapons but I will not be a party to letting anyone erode our rights and constitution one step at a time. First assault weapons, then handguns then auoloaders until we are left with our hands in our pockets wondering what happened.

Wes, yes it does. Otherwise the liberals would have been able to force a decision in the courts as to the PRIVATE right of individuals to own firearms. We are the only country I know of where our govt. guarantees us the righr to own firearms.

9.3x62

There is a lot you can to do with gun laws that will make life miserable for the keen shooter but those laws will not been seen as being anywhere near extreme to the average person.

In Australia the average shooter does not feel that bad about our gun laws because they do not have much impact on him.

Mike

One thing Fred the goverment does not give us rights we had and well have rights long before the goverment. if you read the bill of rights they are call god given for a reason.

As far as using a SKS as a deer rifle they work just find I know several people who have and use them. Power wise they are on par with a 30-30. People who can not afford a more exspensive rifle can buy one.

Is this any diffeant then one buying any surplus millitary rifle. Say a 03a3 garand or M1 carbine. I brought my first deer rifle a like new 03a3 for 30 dollars the dealer had a table piled with them. Dam I wish I could have brought him out.

No the type of rifle some one uses does not matter it is how it is used that matters.

Talentec. Nice knee-jerk. I score you 8.5. Not much in the way of style.

I didn't say anything about ME wanting to ban "assault weapons". I said I don't care if THEY did. Those weapons are a non-issue with me. They don't represent hunting rifles in my context, and I stopped playing GI-Joe years ago.

Your 2+2=8 approach to bolt actions doesn't make much sense, but neither do most ghost stories.

What surprises me about what happened to those hunters is that it hasn't happened years ago. There have been loonies running around in the woods pretending to be deer hunters as long as I've been hunting. I would imagine nearly all of us have had at least one scary experience, of some AH threatening over a downed animal, putting cross-hairs on us just to see who we were, etc.

It is a shame in this instance that "Race", "Hunting" or "type of weapon" may become the focus. It appears to be simply murder. Prosecute!

Something that spooks me is that in the U. S. it seems whenever someone does something unthinkable, some copycat crazy is out there going, "Wow, I never thought of that, COOL!

The Hmong says the white guys shot first. He said, she said...here we go again.

The only thing for certain is, the liberals are stuck between pitching this as an assault-weapon tragedy and having to recognize that an SKS may indeed be thought of as a deer-capable rifle with the occasional sporting purpose.

I am reminded of a conversation that took place in a Connecticut rifle shop a few years ago; a yahoo was buying an AK_clone of some sort and asked the sales clerk if it would "...reach out there...", to which the clerk mumbled something in the affirmative and took his money. On the other hand, an SKS is not much worse than the average Model 94 in 30-30 in accuracy or ballistics. I dunno.

Just a note...

All weopons from tossing rocks, swinging clubs, flint-tipped spears and arrows, to guns, missles, nukes, etc, were an advancement for a quicker and more efficient kill.

This does indeed include the single shot, bolt action, the auto-loader, etc. All advancements, designed to kill people.

I'm not sure how the auto-loader being the only way to kill people, just because it's faster. The bolt action was designed to kill people. At it's creation it was considered mighty fast!

So where do we draw the line? At banning auto-loaders just because these might not fit the deer rifle appearance as invisioned by some folks?

Which one should be next, the bolt action? How about single shot guns, these were used to kill too?

Should we ban everything and go back to tossing rocks and swinging clubs? Well, I'd want my Hornady rocks moly coated, and my Winchester clubs Magna-ported thats for sure! ~~~Suluuq

Well I am a hunter and a military rifle shooter. Here in PA the Game Commission ranges do not allow more than 3 rounds loaded in any weapon at the range. The club I belong to on the other hand allows anything even full auto. I have seen guys with high powered rifles with muzzle breaks just as rude as guys spraying brass all over the place. Nothing like a guy shooting a shot without letting guys know he is ready to shoot when he knows there has been a quiet spell and guys have hearing protection off. Assholes are assholes no matter what gun they shoot.

That said I would love to take one of my M1 Garands deer hunting. It wouldn't be my weapon of choice for most of my deer hunting but I would use it when me and my friends do our Mil. Surplus hunt.

I HAVE owned "military weapons" for so long that I couldn't put a date on it.
I have shot the "useless" rifles in all sorts of competition for over 20+ years.
Just because you don't "hunt" with them does not make them unsuitable for "sporting" purpose.

no one should turn up their nose at another persons choice of sporting arm so long as what they are doing is legal.

One point that may be missing here is the fact that in states that allow semi-autos as hunting rifles, they almost NEVER allow high capacity or over 5 rounds. Maybe someone can enlighten us on the laws in Wisconsin in this regard. I think to call this guy a hunter is a total lie!! Criminal, poacher, murderer, sure, but definitely not a hunter. I've been hunting since the 70's. I have all kinds of guns. In addition to my .300 RUM, .338, and .270 WSM bolt actions,and a couple of .22s, I also have a Contender Carbine, A Rem 1100, a lever action rifle, an SKS, 3 AK's, a FAL, and an AR 15 type Varmint rifle that shoots sub .5 MOA. Most bolt guns wont shoot groups like that, so I don't see how someone can say they aren't a hunting rifle. I'd never think of taking an SKS deer hunting because I have better, but that's not to say they aren't a viable hunting rifle.Their ballistics approximate a .30-30, one of the most succesful deer hunting cartridges in history. Remember, all the original hunting rifles were military rifles first. The Sharps, the Springfields, the Mauser's, etc. I would never use an AK for hunting simply because they aren't that accurate. I wouldn't use my custom FAL either. Why would I want to lug a 10 lb iron sighted .308 around?? As far as the Second Ammendment, it's definitely NOT about militia and defending our country, that's exactly what the antis are trying to convince the world of. It's about us defending OURSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT!!! It gives every man, woman and child the GOD given right to self defence. The issue here should not be the gun, it was only the tool. The focus should be on the man, the unstable criminal that perpetrated this heinous act against these people. One thing I don't understand. If I'm in the woods and someone shoots at me, I'm not even going to take a split second before I'm returning fire.If someone is shooting at me, I sure as hell will try to end the life of whoever is trying to kill me!! I wonder what happened that prevented these people from defending themselves?? Maybe when the whole story comes out, then we'll know.

We are already divided to some extent; witness P.O.Ackley's commentary on autoloading rifles and their owners.

Hopefully the liberals will find themselves stuck admitting that an autoloader is deer-capable and chosen for the purpose by some. I think Pennsylvania may still ban autoloaders for hunting deer...