Are AK-47s really used for hunting?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 10:38 AM GMT
    People hunt with assault rifles because they lack the skill and marksmanship to hunt with a bow!

    suck on that rifle lovers icon_twisted.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 14, 2008 11:48 AM GMT
    There's nothing in the world like gettin' out in the wilderness and pumpin' some little bunny rabbits with lead from my Glock automatic

    I'm waiting for my Bazooka for Christmas from Santa
    I thought I'd shoot me some deer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 12:34 PM GMT
    OK Whiterabbit, so is a compound bow like a firearm?
    Would a 50 to 70 pound Recurve be more sporting?

    Civilian authorized assault rifles are not machineguns. They only shoot once with each squeeze of the trigger. You just don't have to manually operate a bolt or lever to get the next shot ready.

    Fully automatic weapons are notoriously inaccurate anyway. They just spray bullets all over the place except into the intended target. They don't make the neat straight line strikes like you see in the movies.

    In the case in point, the grandfather was negligent.
    I'm not a policeman so I have no idea what kind of charge that would be.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 5:10 PM GMT
    Both the cases for pro and con gun control are dubious. The best thing, in my opinion, is allow people to obtain certain guns with permits.

    That said, using guns during peacetime is fucking stupid and I'm hesitant to trust any one who owns one and I don't trust any one who shines one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 5:38 PM GMT
    ImTrying21 saidBoth the cases for pro and con gun control are dubious. The best thing, in my opinion, is allow people to obtain certain guns with permits.


    I always thought it was rather simple: Get your grubby paws of the Constitution, you damn dirty apes! icon_mad.gif

    ImTrying21 said
    That said, using guns during peacetime is fucking stupid and I'm hesitant to trust any one who owns one and I don't trust any one who shines one.


    So hunters should only hunt when we're at war? No wonder Bush started another war, Cheney wanted to go pheasant hunting! icon_rolleyes.gif
    Seriously man, put some thought into your statements.

    No one understands the Reason for the 2nd Amendment. The ignorance on the matter is quite.. tiresome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2008 6:11 PM GMT
    I am convinced that the best way to approach the gun violence problems is to do something about poverty. A lot of gun-control laws just put a band-aid on the problem and piss off law abiding gun owners.

    That said, why wasn't the safety on? Guns are grand and all, but if are too stupid, too negligent, or too forgetful to put the safety on on your assault rifle then you aren't responsible enough to own one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 12:39 AM GMT
    Buckwheet said[quote][cite]JBE60 said[/cite]I am not a hunter (I come from a family of conservationists) but it does not seem very sporting to hunt animals with an AK-47. But maybe I am just old-fashioned.


    Your average .308 hunting rifle has much more power than the 7.62x39 round. Or do you mean the semi-auto nature of the rifle? It may seem that way, but experience teaches that you really only get one shot. If you miss, the animal is going to be moving and your chances of a hit are minuscule.

    AKs used to be cheap rifles that were fun and cheap to shoot. You could buy a box of hollow points for $4. It was a great multi-purpose plinking/light hunting rifle, and still is. Even though ammo prices have risen with everything else the surplus 7.62x39 round is hard to get because of government contracts. It's the round Afghans and Iraqis use.

    AKs are still cheaper than a mid-range hunting rifle, and even though they aren't ideal, price and cool factor usually win the day.[/quote]

    It is the semi-automatic nature of the weapon not the power. Hunting should be a challenge like fishing. I should ask my boss what he thinks of using an AK-47, he is a hunter (deer and moose).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 1:38 AM GMT
    JBE60 said
    Hunting should be a challenge like fishing.


    You obviously don't know the utter delight that fishing with dynamite endows. icon_razz.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 15, 2008 2:45 AM GMT
    I love the smell of Napalm in the morning....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 12:46 PM GMT
    pdxboxer said; "Now I ask you, do you think G-pa's feelings on gun control have changed? Would he be willing to trade his right to bear war weapons for his grandson?"

    Perhaps his opinion of gun control laws changed. It's called rationalizing, "if there had been a law in place preventing me from having that AK I wouldn't have been so stupid as to accidentally kill my grandson". He probably would have found some other imaginative way to kill his grandson by negligence.

    Owning a gun means taking on a huge responsibility. If you're too stupid to not use the safety on the rifle, then it would be a mistake to get one. But, being a free country (USA), you have the right to decide for yourself. We don't need the control freaks deciding for us.





  • kew1

    Posts: 1653

    Jun 15, 2008 6:31 PM GMT
    GQjock saidThere's nothing in the world like gettin' out in the wilderness and pumpin' some little bunny rabbits with lead from my Glock automatic

    I'm waiting for my Bazooka for Christmas from Santa
    I thought I'd shoot me some deer


    Or try Havermeyer's technique in Catch 22 - shoots mice with a 45 . With Dum Dums if I remember correctlyicon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 10:34 PM GMT
    Buckwheet said[quote][cite]JBE60 said[/cite]
    Hunting should be a challenge like fishing.


    You obviously don't know the utter delight that fishing with dynamite endows. icon_razz.gif[/quote]


    Haha, I just remembered something while running on the treadmill this AM. My boss hunts with a bow and arrow as well as a regular hunting rifle. Now that is hunting!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 10:36 PM GMT
    It doesn't have to be fully automatic, could be a semi icon_wink.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 11:25 PM GMT
    As a proud NRA Member, of course they are used as huntin' gear, mind y'all just yesterday i went as my buddy Josh says...."WABBIT HUNTIN'", and we both were able to get one each, I think as not much was left....LOL

    Seriously, I'm a redneck republican nra member and although they can and have been used as hunting assets, a real man uses bow/arrow or a rifle.

    BUT....I'd definately defend anyones' right to use one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2008 11:54 PM GMT
    You are 18, republican and NRA member!? Why can't I meet someone up here similar to you who is into dudes also icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 2:14 AM GMT
    colestheman said
    Seriously, I'm a redneck republican nra member and although they can and have been used as hunting assets, a real man uses bow/arrow or a rifle.


    I serve on a Friends of NRA committee. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 2:23 AM GMT
    I didnt dream that this thread was going to bring out the rabid right repugnican, nra loving members on RJ.

    I dont know whether to be scared that you all are coalescing...

    Or happy that we have you all in one place where we can squish you like bugs...


    j/k...really ... icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 2:37 AM GMT
    Buckwheet said[quote][cite]ImTrying21 said[/cite]Both the cases for pro and con gun control are dubious. The best thing, in my opinion, is allow people to obtain certain guns with permits.


    I always thought it was rather simple: Get your grubby paws of the Constitution, you damn dirty apes! icon_mad.gif

    ImTrying21 said
    That said, using guns during peacetime is fucking stupid and I'm hesitant to trust any one who owns one and I don't trust any one who shines one.


    So hunters should only hunt when we're at war? No wonder Bush started another war, Cheney wanted to go pheasant hunting! icon_rolleyes.gif
    Seriously man, put some thought into your statements.

    No one understands the Reason for the 2nd Amendment. The ignorance on the matter is quite.. tiresome.[/quote]

    Your right. I've rethought my statement. Simply "I'm hesitant to trust anyone who own a gun. Also, I don't trust people who fetishizes guns," is sufficient.

    Question-Thought: Are the "founding fathers" deities now? Its as Americana arguments are based on whether the monolithic Founding Fathers agree with whatever position or not. Or at least whatever position we think they'd agree with. If I remember right, after a couple of class rebellions, the founding fathers laid the ground work to pave the way for greater federal inteference. A snowball on a hill I guess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 3:36 AM GMT
    ImTrying21 said
    Are the "founding fathers" deities now?
    Yep, pretty much. icon_razz.gif

    ImTrying21 said
    Its as Americana arguments are based on whether the monolithic Founding Fathers agree with whatever position or not.

    Huh?

    ImTrying21 said
    Or at least whatever position we think they'd agree with.


    Most of the Founding Fathers wrote extensively and made their thoughts on issues plain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 3:55 AM GMT
    Buckwheet said[quote][cite]ImTrying21 said[/cite]
    Are the "founding fathers" deities now?
    Yep, pretty much. icon_razz.gif

    ImTrying21 said
    Its as Americana arguments are based on whether the monolithic Founding Fathers agree with whatever position or not.

    Huh?

    ImTrying21 said
    Or at least whatever position we think they'd agree with.


    Most of the Founding Fathers wrote extensively and made their thoughts on issues plain.[/quote]

    All deities disappoint sooner or later.

    "Huh?"

    I meant, "its as if".

    I'm saying that that type of reasoning amounts to "the founding fathers said it, I believe it. Case closed." The problem is that the founding fathers were human. Everyone has some wisdom seated within them as well as errors. For example, as I touched on vaguely in my last post, with the United States Constitution, and the throwing away of the Articles of Confederation, the founding fathers intentionally strengthened the federal government while allowing the possibility of creating more laws to impose on the states. Whether we agree thats a good thing or not, we do know they were quite ambivalent when it came to statism's reach.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 4:02 AM GMT
    ImTrying21 said... we do know they were quite ambivalent when it came to statism's reach.

    statism
    Main Entry: stat·ism
    Pronunciation: ˈstā-ˌti-zəm
    Function: noun
    Date: 1919
    : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

    Is this what you meant? Or do you mean states' rights reach
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 4:27 AM GMT
    Caslon4000 said[quote][cite]ImTrying21 said[/cite]... we do know they were quite ambivalent when it came to statism's reach.

    statism
    Main Entry: stat·ism
    Pronunciation: ˈstā-ˌti-zəm
    Function: noun
    Date: 1919
    : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

    Is this what you meant? Or do you mean states' rights reach[/quote]

    Yes and no. icon_smile.gif

    I'm talking about state-capitalism. The Constitution concentrated and strengthened the federal governments economic and political control over the states. In my opinion, they did so in order to contain class conflict (Shay's, Whiskey Rebellion, etc) protect the wealthy, and pave the way for more beauracracy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 4:43 AM GMT
    ImTrying21 said[...The Constitution concentrated and strengthened the federal governments economic and political control over the states. In my opinion, they did so in order to contain class conflict (Shay's, Whiskey Rebellion, etc) protect the wealthy, and pave the way for more beauracracy.


    Yes, Shay's Rebellion did alarm enough people to tip the balance for reforming the Articles of Confederation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2008 7:01 AM GMT
    ImTrying21 said
    I'm saying that that type of reasoning amounts to "the founding fathers said it, I believe it. Case closed." The problem is that the founding fathers were human. Everyone has some wisdom seated within them as well as errors. For example, as I touched on vaguely in my last post, with the United States Constitution, and the throwing away of the Articles of Confederation, the founding fathers intentionally strengthened the federal government while allowing the possibility of creating more laws to impose on the states. Whether we agree thats a good thing or not, we do know they were quite ambivalent when it came to statism's reach.


    What does that have to do with the reasoning behind the rights in the Bill of Rights?

    They weren't hanging around the poker table when James Madison said, 'Hey, let's amend the constitution with civil rights!'. Particular interest went into drafting those 10 rights; that they are considered rights should imply enough importance to prevent them from being dismissed as the ramblings of fallible men.

    The Founding Fathers were human and they had many faults, they also birthed a nation with a founding principle of freedom. They had certain principles that they would not have trod on and by way of character they risked their lives to see it manifest, and that's certainly worth something.

    What do you mean by Americana arguments? I've never heard that term before.