Nonresident hunting in ny with 30 cal ar

[Mr VJP]

If we are told we can not assume all Muslims are terrorists because of the actions of a few crazies, why are they allowed to say all AR owners are crazies because of the actions of one or two?

 

[jrm]

I wonder why game laws say 5 or 6 and guys want to hunt with a gun built for 30.

 

 

Isn't it the magazine that is built for 5 or 10 or 20 or 100? The rifle is just built to accept a magazine, regardless of size. Or are you suggesting that AR hunters are not only rambo wanabess, but lean towards the AR because they are unethical and seek to circumvent game laws? The reasons already given in this thread shoot down both mischaracterizations. I also see plenty of websites promoting the usefulness of .223 ARs for coyote/predator hunting.

Most kids have grown up playing call of duty and probably know more about AR style rifles specs and capabilities without even shooting one than most guys on this site. Don't confuse your aunt and a 20 year old.

Jumping around a bit here, but I'll bite.

Let's skip the part where playing "Call of Duty" has little bearing to real world firearm usage. I would bet that "most of the population" has not played Call of Duty at all, let alone consider it substitution for real knowledge on ARs. Clearing a jam with the "x+y+ up button combo" doesn't count to me as knowing specs and capabilities.

The call of duty 20-somethings I see would look at a real AR and say "cool!" It is my aunt (literally) who would be intimidated by an AR and ask "why would anyone need that baby killing machine." Following your logic, the CoD crowd would be LESS inclined towards an "image" problem with people using an AR.

So yes, I still say that "most of the population" being shown a picture of a hunter with a hunting AR (rifle + scope, no fancy attachments/customization) would not realize they are looking at "an evil assault weapon" unless a) they have been closely following Diane Fienstein and believe the crap she is spewing or someone like Diane Fienstein pointed to the rifle in the picture and "educated" them to the "evils" of scary, black, baby-killing, mass-murdering assault weapons that only police and military should be able to possess.

[Five Seasons]

Isn't it the magazine that is built for 5 or 10 or 20 or 100? The rifle is just built to accept a magazine, regardless of size. Or are you suggesting that AR hunters are not only rambo wanabess, but lean towards the AR because they are unethical and seek to circumvent game laws? The reasons already given in this thread shoot down both mischaracterizations. I also see plenty of websites promoting the usefulness of .223 ARs for coyote/predator hunting.

Jumping around a bit here, but I'll bite.

Let's skip the part where playing "Call of Duty" has little bearing to real world firearm usage. I would bet that "most of the population" has not played Call of Duty at all, let alone consider it substitution for real knowledge on ARs. Clearing a jam with the "x+y+ up button combo" doesn't count to me as knowing specs and capabilities.

The call of duty 20-somethings I see would look at a real AR and say "cool!" It is my aunt (literally) who would be intimidated by an AR and ask "why would anyone need that baby killing machine." Following your logic, the CoD crowd would be LESS inclined towards an "image" problem with people using an AR.

So yes, I still say that "most of the population" being shown a picture of a hunter with a hunting AR (rifle + scope, no fancy attachments/customization) would not realize they are looking at "an evil assault weapon" unless a) they have been closely following Diane Fienstein and believe the crap she is spewing or someone like Diane Fienstein pointed to the rifle in the picture and "educated" them to the "evils" of scary, black, baby-killing, mass-murdering assault weapons that only police and military should be able to possess.

The kid who thinks the AR is cool is because he knows how bad ass it is at killing bad guys. You also just proved stubby' point on why guys buy ARs.

[jjb4900]

isn't it bad enough that the general, non gun owning, non hunting public and outright anti's, look at the AR's as nothing more than weapons of mass destruction that have no other purpose than to kill people? all they need to see is a politician pointing to a picture of one and saying that nobody needs one of these to go hunting, and they all gasp and nod their heads in total agreement............I personally don't like the looks and feel of one, but for the guy who does, more power to him if he's a responsible guy. 

[jrm]

The kid who thinks the AR is cool is because he knows how bad ass it is at killing bad guys. You also just proved stubby' point on why guys buy ARs.

Whoa! That point was not proven at all.

What you are saying is:

1. Kid plays call of duty. The black rifle in the game kills hundreds of make-believe "people" easily and all kid gets is a sore thumb from pressing a button too many times.

2. Same kid now runs out to buy an AR because it looks like the rifle in the game, and it would be "really cool" to kill hundreds of real people with no moral or legal repercussions (just like in the game!)Can't wait to be a mass-murderer!

The logic train has completely derailed.

Someone made a comment which stereotyped and generalized AR owners as rambo wannabes. You added to that by stating hunters using ARs creates a bad image for hunters in general.

I don't see how anything regarding video games relates back to either point - it is a different topic altogether. Are you now suggesting that video game violence is the cause of mass-shootings? I don't agree with that premise. Nor do see how it has any relation to the AR's use as a hunting rifle. You brought up Call of Duty as an example of the AR getting a bad image among those who play the game. I only pointed out that those who play the game are less likely to se an AR and freak out like most people's who's only exposure to guns is "Terminator" and "CNN."

Help me out please. Is your point:

1. the AR is not a "good" choice for hunting?

2. the AR is not a "proper" choice for hunting?

3. the AR is only for police and military use?

4. people who use ARs are a "little off"

5. ARs are a poor choice, so is us purchased by unknowledgeable people only because they want to look "cool"

6. use of ARs in hunting are a big reason why some people have a problem with hunting/hunters?

7. Video games are the cause/a main contributor to violent crime?

8. None of the above - "Responsibility" is the point you are making.

You have either stated. seemed to agree with or strongly implied most of the above points in this thread. The discussion continues to drift. What are you actually trying to say?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I wonder why game laws say 5 or 6 and guys want to hunt with a gun built for 30.

the gun is built for 30? Could have sworn the gun was built to accept an mag. 5 round. 10 round. 30 round. Drum mags.

[ants]

That is the point. Responsibility.

 

Exactly...

[stubby68]

                     Guys keep bringing up the color of the weapons. Why? color has nothing to do with it. Black,  brown, or camo the general public sees them as a military stile weapon this is why these typ of guns are always under attack. To think that most people wouldn't not know if the hunter in a pic was using an AR or not unless they were told is foolish. They may not know what type or calliber but they would know is as an AR. As Belo said you proved my point most Ar plat form rifles are bought for the cool factor.

 

                           

 

                          

                               I've felt that way about every gun I purchased. My "coolest" looking gun is my Winchester '73 reproduction.

Who ever purchased a gun because they thought it was "ugly." Aesthetics is a factor in most things we buy.


"Hey friend, c'mon over and see the new gun I got. Isn't it the ugliest thing you ever saw? I'm embarrassed to leave the house with it! But it was expensive and not very accurate, so i just had to buy it." I don't think so.


Liking the look/feel of a gun is a far cry from your original "rambo wannabe" assertion.

 

                     This as well proves my point. Thanx. I have never bought a gun because it looked cool. In fact looking cool is the last thing I think of when buying anything. I buy things that serve a function for me not make me look cool. I do not call my friends and tell them about the new cool gun I just bought. If they see me useing it then they know I bought a new on. I do not have a need to let other people know about all the cool guns I have. Like I said most of those who own AR rifles call there friends and say I just got a cool gun come see it. The need to show off these guns is part of the problem with them.

 

                   Culver being the most popular platform in the country just means that everyone has to have what is seen as the cool new thing. This will pass just as soon as they start attacking another gun. Then everyone will run out and buy them and scream don't tell me what I can not own.

 

 

 

                     I am against the safe act and feel that if someone wants to own and hunt with an AR then they have the right to do so. However with the attack on the AR and the 2 amendment holding these guns up and shakeing them in the faces of those against them is doing our cause no help what so ever. These guns are being attacked because they are reconised by many as being a military killing weapon and they do not understand why someone needs that for hunting. the antis just do not care they see a gun and want all guns gone. It is easy for them to point at an Ar and say looking a killing machine and gain support for there cause. Not as easy for them to say that about a shot gun or traditional rifle. They can and are use the AR to start taking all guns.

 

 

 

                              If someone wants to use an AR to hunt deer fine just do not say you use it for reasons other then it is cool looking. When there are many other guns out there that can be used to kill deer just as affectively. saying the Ar is better for hunting for what ever reason you want holds no water. That is like going out and paying $1500 for a deer gun when you can do the same thing with a $500 gun. The expensive gun was not bought necause it was actually better it was bought because you wanted it and it looks fancy and cool to have it. I am not against AR rifles just against the bs reasons people give to justify useing one. Use one if you want just do not complain when someone says you look foolish carrying it in the woods or asks why it is need for killing deer. You know how much of this country feels about them so expect it.

 

 

                      I am not saying you shouldnt own one if you want or that you should hide it. Just do not shove it in there face or give a bs reason for haveing it. Taunting the freedom thieves is not the way to get our rights back. When we do finally get them back we will have to take then back. The taunting that is going on now is just making things worse for gun owners. 

                     

[stubby68]

                   Belo asked a question as to why people use an AR to hunt deer and instead on a good answer he was immediately attacked. That right there speeks to the mentality of most AR users. This is what the public sees and remembers because that is what the media and others throw in there face every day. They are only shown the bad never the good and that is what they know and remember. This is why we should worry about what they think and try to change it and show them it is not all evil. Holding your AR up high and saying this is mine and you can not take it will not work and as we have learned it does not work. If they see it as evil and want it they will take it. We need to show them and educate them to the fact that it is no different then any other hunting rifle and that may not even work. We may just have to pick up our guns and take back our rights as we did many many many years ago. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

yeah not trying to turn it into a debate. Just curious I guess. I can buy a ruger american for ~400 with a economy scope. I can't buy any AR for that that I know of, and the american is meant for hunting.

is it "just because"?

Stubby. This is actually the start of the derail. Meaning the AR is NOT meant for hunting

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I know exactly what I'm comparing. Generally most hunters use a bolt action because of the accuracy and because they don't need 30 rounds of 223, plus the AR is much more expensive. So I'm trying to understand why someone would want to hunt with one. Not arguing, just curious.

And stubby. Does this sound familiar. Who needs 30 rounds to kill a deer?

[Mr VJP]

OK, let's get off the hunting issue and talk about the other issue.  Who needs an AR type rifle and large cap mags?

 

The people in LA during the riots and the people of Ferguson MO that had them still have their stores and their properties.  I'll bet they are glad they had them.

 

Those rifle can hunt, no doubt about it, but they are also great for defense, and that's what the owner's are aware of when they buy one.  The right to self defense with a modern firearm is protected by the 2A, so anyone with issues over people owning one for hunting or not, is promoting the elimination of your 2A rights.

 

Anyone who tries to say you're paranoid or a right wing crazy because you think you might need one to defend yourself someday is living in a dream world where nothing bad will ever happen in the future because this is America and that can't happen here.

 

Now if you want to say we shouldn't antagonize these tyrants and try to placate them, you are already accepting defeat and will never get them to stop at AR's when they win that battle.

 

They've already come after your semi auto pistol if it can take a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.  Thinking you can find some sort of compromise with these gun banners is naive.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2015 by Mr VJP

[stubby68]

                  He asked a question in which he stated a fact he was attacked for. The AR was not ment to be a hunting rifle. It started being used for that purpose. It was ment to make money in the self defense department and war department. When the AR platform was advertised to the public for the first it was not seen as or said to be the next great hunting rifle so where was he wrong in stating that. I nor he are argueing one should not be able to use what one wants as long as legal. 

 

                     As I said he asked a question and was attacked. Then he tried to explain why he asked said question and was attacked for that. If some one had of said we use them because they are cool and can, right away this thread would probably have died a short life. He finally did get and answer he was happy with but by that point he already had started defending himself and rigtfully so.

 

 

                       If his question had of been attacked first instead of attacked he would have had no need to defend himself and there would not have been a derail. If people thought he was trying to derail things with his question then why even respond. Could have ignored it and moved on he might have just gone away.The attacking someone for ther opinions is where these threads get derailed most of the time. In both posts you quoted he said not trying to start a debate and that he was not arguing and was curious. I kind of see that as asking not to be attacked just answered.                                        

[Mr VJP]

His question should have been answered with another question.  "Why would you ask such a question?  Would you ask a man to justify any of his other preferences with the same disdain?"

 

I think that is a question no gun owner should ever ask unless he wants to admit he's against owning an AR for hunting in the first place.

 

Edited March 28, 2015 by Mr VJP

[stubby68]

             VJP I agree they will never stop and will always come after our guns ( all of them). Not antagonizing them in not accepting defeat. It is not giving them a reason to speed up there attack on our rights. 

 

             No one in this thread said they should not be owned or hunted with.  AT no time did anyone say that. Just because someone said they didn't see a need for hunting with one does not mean they do not think they should be owned or used.  

 

             ( Those rifle can hunt, no doubt about it, but they are also great for defense, and that's what the owner's are aware of when they buy one.  The right to self defense with a modern firearm is protected by the 2A, so anyone with issues over people owning one for hunting or not, is promoting the elimination of your 2A rights.)

 

                      Those rifles can not hunt in fact no gun can hunt. Just like when antis claim the gun does the killing. as we all know it in the person who  does the hunting and the killing. A person holds the gun, the person aims and shoots the gun, it does not matter what the gun is if you can not aim or shoot then the gun is no better then anyother. To say the gun is better for hunting or defense then anyother gun makes no sense. If you can not kill a deer or defend with a regular rifle then why is it easier to do with an AR. I have no problem with someone owning anything they legally can for anyreason they legally can                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .The people in LA during the riots and the people of Ferguson MO that had them still have their stores and their properties.  I'll bet they are glad they had them.

                          Are you saying that all the people who still have there stores had them and that the ones who did not had other guns like bolt actions? This sounds like you are saying that a store owner with any gun other then an AR lost or would have lost there store or properties. Are you saying they could not have defended themselfs with any other gun?

                   In the end we are going to have to take back our rights because they deffently will not be given back. As you said there is no reasoning with the gun banners. Right now the gun banners have the power ( as they have Showed us with the bans the have gotten already) so why keep pushing them to show us how much more power they have? We need to keep what we have and take back what we have lost.

[ants]

I wonder why game laws say 5 or 6 and guys want to hunt with a gun built for 30.

 

Why do YOU think that is??? Is it that guys find the AR to be an accurate, reliable rifle that fits them better than other rifle styles, or do you think these guys just use that as an excuse to own a rifle that , in your opinion, "No civilian needs"??????

 

And why is it that game laws say that you can only hunt water fowl with 3 rounds but most guys hunt them with guns designed to hold 5-7 rounds????

[stubby68]

                      His question should have been answered with another question.  "Why would you ask such a question?  Would you ask a man to justify any of his other preferences with the same disdain?"

 

I think that is a question no gun owner should ever ask unless he wants to admit he's against owning an AR for hunting in the first place

 

                         I saw no disdainin his question i see a question asked by some one trying to be further educated as to why some people use them. Could be he was thinking of useing one himself and was looking for input to help him make a desision. There have been many threads asking what gun should I get and why. So why is his question asking why some one uses an Ar any different? Asking some one why they chose a certain gun is no different then asking them why the use a certain lawn mower or drive a certain truck. Why would it be wrong for me to ask you why you use what you do for hunting.  I have no problem with some one asking me that I just answer with because that is what I like to use.

[ants]

Thats just it. I think he is against owning  AR's for hunting. In a previous post he said that he didn't think AR's were doing us much good in the deer woods and a lot of his points are focused on the looks of AR's and the ability for them to accept hi cap mags.

[Mr VJP]

I see it like this, people will try to convince other's not to push confrontation to remain comfortable in their own position.

 

Imagine how many people asked Rosa Parks why she "needed" to sit in the front of the bus.

 

She could get to her destination just as well by sitting in the back.  Why do something that goes against what our oppressors want so it makes it hard on the rest of us?

 

It's a simple answer.  Nobody ever won a fight against their oppressor by complying with their oppressive demands.

 

Nobody "needs" an AR to hunt with?  Nobody "needs" to hunt at all!

 

Your rights are not limited by what others fear, or what they think you need.  If you don't fully support responsible gun owners having AR's for whatever reason, you don't object to infringements on your rights.

 

 

[stubby68]

              Vjp this is why I said we have to take back our rights. Shakeing a gun in there face does nothing to stop them it just serves to push them to take more of our guns. We need to stop them not give them a reason to go further. I suppoort all gun owner ship  how ever I do not support saying we need certain things because they are better. Say you want it and have a right to have it . Making an excuse for owning it is the same as saying to them they are right I do not need it.

 

               

 

Posted Today, 10:04 AM

Thats just it. I think he is against owning  AR's for hunting. In a previous post he said that he didn't think AR's were doing us much good in the deer woods and a lot of his points are focused on the looks of AR's and the ability for them to accept hi cap mags

                           He might be. However this statement was made after he was attacked and was defending himself. His original question did not even imply that he was against AR rifles. This question was attacked and not one person could say that it was an attack for anything other then some one thinking he disagreed with him. An assumption they had no reason to think at that time.

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Vjp this is why I said we have to take back our rights. Shakeing a gun in there face does nothing to stop them it just serves to push them to take more of our guns. We need to stop them not give them a reason to go further. I suppoort all gun owner ship how ever I do not support saying we need certain things because they are better. Say you want it and have a right to have it . Making an excuse for owning it is the same as saying to them they are right I do not need it.

Posted Today, 10:04 AM

Thats just it. I think he is against owning AR's for hunting. In a previous post he said that he didn't think AR's were doing us much good in the deer woods and a lot of his points are focused on the looks of AR's and the ability for them to accept hi cap mags

He might be. However this statement was made after he was attacked and was defending himself. His original question did not even imply that he was against AR rifles. This question was attacked and not one person could say that it was an attack for anything other then some one thinking he disagreed with him. An assumption they had no reason to think at that time.

You are wrong. He was not called on the carpet for his anti views until he started with the typical anti comments like why needling 30 rounds. There were comments explaining why someone would want one and why his try to compare to a $400 by gun was inaccurate. His opinion is evident in his posts as well as previous posts on this site and I stand by my comment that gun owners like him are the problem and he should burn his NRA card

[Five Seasons]

Whoa! That point was not proven at all.

What you are saying is:

1. Kid plays call of duty. The black rifle in the game kills hundreds of make-believe "people" easily and all kid gets is a sore thumb from pressing a button too many times.

2. Same kid now runs out to buy an AR because it looks like the rifle in the game, and it would be "really cool" to kill hundreds of real people with no moral or legal repercussions (just like in the game!)Can't wait to be a mass-murderer!

The logic train has completely derailed.

Someone made a comment which stereotyped and generalized AR owners as rambo wannabes. You added to that by stating hunters using ARs creates a bad image for hunters in general.

I don't see how anything regarding video games relates back to either point - it is a different topic altogether. Are you now suggesting that video game violence is the cause of mass-shootings? I don't agree with that premise. Nor do see how it has any relation to the AR's use as a hunting rifle. You brought up Call of Duty as an example of the AR getting a bad image among those who play the game. I only pointed out that those who play the game are less likely to se an AR and freak out like most people's who's only exposure to guns is "Terminator" and "CNN."

Help me out please. Is your point:

1. the AR is not a "good" choice for hunting?

2. the AR is not a "proper" choice for hunting?

3. the AR is only for police and military use?

4. people who use ARs are a "little off"

5. ARs are a poor choice, so is us purchased by unknowledgeable people only because they want to look "cool"

6. use of ARs in hunting are a big reason why some people have a problem with hunting/hunters?

7. Video games are the cause/a main contributor to violent crime?

8. None of the above - "Responsibility" is the point you are making.

You have either stated. seemed to agree with or strongly implied most of the above points in this thread. The discussion continues to drift. What are you actually trying to say?

I play videogames and own guns. Ones that illegal in NY. What I was agreeing with a few others that the reason people buy ARs is because they're bad ass.

[Five Seasons]

Stubby. This is actually the start of the derail. Meaning the AR is NOT meant for hunting

Do you really think the ar platform was designed for hunting and not combat? Is that what colt had in mind? Was hunting the reason the picatiny rail was introduced? If so why doesn't every Hunter, hunting show and magazine feature them?

That is what I meant and you know it. Not that it can't be used to hunt, but that was 100% not the idea behind the platform.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Belo

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Do you really think the ar platform was designed for hunting and not combat? Is that what colt had in mind? Was hunting the reason the picatiny rail was introduced? If so why doesn't every Hunter, hunting show and magazine feature them?

That is what I meant and you know it. Not that it can't be used to hunt, but that was 100% not the idea behind the platform.

About every modern hunting weapon had its roots originally in design. Should that draw ridicule? How about the sharps. The Mauser? Revolvers? Why were these developed? Initial military applications.

[Five Seasons]

His question should have been answered with another question. "Why would you ask such a question? Would you ask a man to justify any of his other preferences with the same disdain?"

I think that is a question no gun owner should ever ask unless he wants to admit he's against owning an AR for hunting in the first place.

It's no different than asking why'd you buy a mustang instead of a camaro. It's a discussion board. I've learned lots on this site by asking questions.