Legal in the SRA, evil outside of them

Black is evil----of course since black is evil, anything capable of doing the same thing as black must also be evil.  Liberal thinking 101. 
 
DPMS- If you pointed that out to the anti gun politicians they would just ban the black gun, along with the rest of the semi shotguns, not legalize the others.

While I agree with you in principal the fact is our BOC has taken different political  positions over the years on firearms.  When I first started turkey hunting I used a 222 rifle in the fall. The BOC decided that was too dangerous and banned it's use for safety reasons. ( For the record I agree with that decision due to the nature of the sport.)  Now this BOC has decided there is no problem with using rifles in the fall. Hunting the same bird using the same methods but with different politics.
 I can imagine that black shotgun would tend to get folks around the city stirred up in todays climate.

I have hunted West Virginia and I have seen VERY compelling reasons not to alow them in our deer season.  Don't care who disagrees or agrees.   I don't support it.
 
I fully support having the right to own these weapons.   That doesn't mean we have to use them to hunt or hunt deer.
 
There is no false perceptions and no sensationalizing.   Its an opinion, no different than the one saying we should legalize them.
 
Some want every weapon there is from spear to cannon legal to shoot a deer, do it year 'round and every day of the week, for everyone including infants straight from the womb.
 
Sorry, but I support some common sense reasonable  limitations when it comes to hunting regs.

Ive been in the middle (on stand) of large drives put on where many deer were "moved" and mowed down.  Everything that was brown and moving either went down or limped away.   Shots like a war, and very indiscriminately sprayed.   And yes, I was concerned for safety as bullets whizzed past.   Just the whole situation in general.    And no, I dont think it wouldve been nearly as ugly with any other action rifle, and have seen nothing even close in many more years and much more time that has been spent hunting in Pa.
 
I repect the opinions others hold that maybe they would like to hunt with such a weapon for whatever reason.  
 
But I remain opposed based on my experiences which I personally weigh over the sentiment that we should legalize them just because we can.

wayne c
Sorry, but I support some common sense reasonable  limitations when it comes to hunting regs.

 
Kinda like the common sense reasonable limtiations that anti gunners wish to impose on our ownership of guns.
 
Why is it the person behind the gun when the issue is gun rights, but it is the gun and not the person when the issue is hunting. Everything in your post is pertaining to the people with the guns.
 
I know you oppose the PGC having regulatory control of Sunday hunting becuase you not trust the agency to regulate it. Is it the same with this issue? All I wish to see is our game agency being able to regulate all legal firearms for hunting.
 
If you oppose their use for hunting in general, do you oppose semi auto for sporting puposes nationwide? Or just here in Pa?

Just wondering what you folks position is on magazine capacity for hunting turkey, bear or deer if semi-rifles were legal. Currently shotguns are plugged for 3.  I support up to 30 round mags for guns for protection but never thought much about the black rifles for Pa hunting deer,bear,turkey.

A fellow that hunts in the same general area that I do for antlered deer has a Remington 760 GameMaster pump in .243.  He also has a clear plastic magazine that holds 20 rounds.  I aske dhim why and he said it keeps him form having to carry ammo -- just insert the magazine.

    While I dont believe we should limit that guys clip Dar I think a 20 round clip in the woods for Deer is a bit -well just a bit more than a bit..
 I know you are the kind of hunter who takes careful aim and likely uses one shot as  with my single shot Ruger. Only carry about 3 in my pocket on any given day too.
 Again I dont want to sound like I'm talking infringement here but perhaps more likely common sense.
  Personally believe the worst sound in the woods is bang bang bang bang -faster than you can read it--and who the heck needs 20 rounds on a days Deer hunt-        
     Heck -- havent used 20 afield in the past 7 or  8 years.- and that taking a couple most each season.
  Wanna be anyplace near a guy who has so little faith in his own shooting ability??
  Hunting and shootin are two very different things.

Not just talking deer here. I know that is a focus for some.

 
And I focused on that because thats what the majority of us hunt.   Its a time when alot of us are afield.   And its a time most likely to be effected by this change compared to lesser participation seasons.
 

But I bring up semis for small game and predators. You oppose that as well, I assume?

 
I have mixed feelings on it, but would probably oppose if given the decision to make.

I never have more than 7 with me and that's only because years ago I needed one more than the 4 I used to take. I found out the hard way a bullet works much better than a knife. I once saw my 14 yo son  fire 5 shots at a buck running across a 90 foot right a way with a lever action 30-30. Didn't think it was possible to fire five that quick. Apparently it's not possible to do it and hit anything.
I am all for large capacity (30 rd) mags for protection or plinking, for hunting, not so much.

wayne c 

Why is it the person behind the gun when the issue is gun rights, but it is the gun and not the person when the issue is hunting.

Because its two completely different issues.    It is my right to own a gun.   It is not my right to shoot a deer (or bear or turkey or...) with anything that I want, from spear to lazer cannon.

 
Not sure I understand why you think we should blame the person behind the gun when the issue is gun rights, but then blame the gun when the issue is hunters taking dangerous shots.  Shifting blame dependent on the issue when we have two constant factors. The gun and the person with the gun.
 
You want to restrict the use of certain guns for sporting purposes because of the actions of individuals.  That is the same arguement being used in a attempt to strip our right to bear arms. Because of the actions of law breakers, law abiding citizens should have their rights infringed. 
 
With the authority to regulate all firearms for hunting, the conversation can continue on Elmerton Ave. And with that, the promotion of these firearms for all of their intended purposes can be furthered.

Not sure I understand why you think we should blame the person behind the gun when the issue is gun rights, but then blame the gun when the issue is hunters taking dangerous shots.

 
Because you are trying to oversimplify my stance when it is more complex, and you know it.    Take away my gun rights and you are infringing on my rights to hunt, protect myself and my family, and other people have other reasons also...   Don't allow me to hunt with a semi for deer and thats all that is lost.   And since it is the way things have been for so long, we lose nothing anyway.
 
Our right is to own guns, and like it or not its only common sense that it be subjected to reasonable regulation.   What is and what isnt reasonable regulation is open to debate.   That right doesnt extend to us being able to just do anything we want with our guns.  Try carrying your black rifle to the next presidential address.
 
What THIS issue boils down to is I don't want them legalized because they arent needed, I dont think the majority of us want them legalize, and I don't like the potential effects.     Your position is You would like them to be legal.    You arent "wrong", and neither am I.
 
But seriously dude, to try to tie my views to being in any way similar to those that are antigun, just as you have with all others not supporting sunday hunting to antihunters is completely asnine.

dpms

wayne c
I don't hunt all the states nationwide.   That imo should be for them to decide for themselves.

Do you like the model of politicians regulating the use of firearms for hunting like we do here in Pa. 

 
I don't love it.   But understand the necessity of it.   Realistically its the only way.   Last I checked we were still part of a democracy.
 
 
 

Many current regulations are not "needed".

 
But this vocal attack on any dissenting view is downright bizzarre if we dont "need" it.   The support you give  is nothing but your opinion.   And who the hell are you to think yours alone should over-rule everyone elses?    That certainly is quite selfish no?  You appointing yourself the King of the Keystone now?  lmao.  On a serious note, what role if ANY should sportsmen view play on such a proposal?   If I understand you right, you support pgc making the decision, whether we as a whole support it or not correct?   To me that makes absolutely no sense.  This should be decided by us as a whole if it ever is proposed.   Not some little select group and back room dealings as is all too often the case today, and especially at pgc.   
 

 They exist as opportunities without negative consequences.

 
And that being the case for implementing semis or whatever else is nothing but your opinion.    But it shouldnt matter if the majority of hunters don't want it or if they do.... Dpms supporting it should be the key factor considered here.    Nor should taking it away from the democratic process and giving it to whatever agency you think might give you your wish. 
 

Heck most of our small game seasons are not needed.

 
Think the majority of sportsmen oppose small game hunting or support the concepts? lol.   
 

 Removes politicians from it.

 
Which isnt a good thing.   I can vote for my representative or the governor.   I cant vote for boc.   It also takes a ton of individuals to make a decision in state gov'ment on this.  Thats alot of people that would have to really screw up to do "the wrong thing" not to mention risk being voted out.    It would take only 5 untouchable commissioners.   Even less if vote were taken during a time without a full board in place.   No checks and balances would not be a good thing.   Not in government or any state agency including pgc.
 

The PGC can do with they want with it as they see fit.

 
Which isnt a good thing.
 

 You and I are free to express our wishes.

 
As I can now on the issue, and only difference, now I can actually be heard if need be. 
  

I am just trying to understand your shifting position of blame when we have two constants. The gun and the person behind the gun. When it is gun rights, it is the person. When it is sporting purposes, it is the gun.

 
No shifting in anything but your comprehension.    Its been explained.   Not my problem if you can't understand a multiple times given-- very clear explanation.    I don't think for a minute you are that stupid, I think its being 100% disingenuous on your part and twisting my position because it doesnt agree with yours.

retired guy

    While I dont believe we should limit that guys clip Dar I think a 20 round clip in the woods for Deer is a bit -well just a bit more than a bit..
I know you are the kind of hunter who takes careful aim and likely uses one shot as  with my single shot Ruger. Only carry about 3 in my pocket on any given day too.
Again I dont want to sound like I'm talking infringement here but perhaps more likely common sense.
Personally believe the worst sound in the woods is bang bang bang bang -faster than you can read it--and who the heck needs 20 rounds on a days Deer hunt-        
    Heck -- havent used 20 afield in the past 7 or  8 years.- and that taking a couple most each season.
Wanna be anyplace near a guy who has so little faith in his own shooting ability??
Hunting and shootin are two very different things.

 
A 20 shot is not my idea of a way to go either, but if it fit his rationale, so be it.
 
I put 4 in my rifle and always carry the balance of the box.  Why?  For the same reason I fill up my vehicle tank when making a 100 mile trip -- retentive to make sure I have enough.