Third World Skeptical Kid

Single round bolt-action. It's not a particularly difficult distinction and if you can't do it with a bolt action then you really just suck at hunting.

Bolt-action weapons suck for self-defense compared to any semi-auto equivalent.

If you're talking about defending your home against a burglar, what you want in that situation is a shotgun - which is ALSO a weapon that is largely not being targeted in any significant legislation.

A semi-auto or anything like it is more likely to do more damage to your house and your neighbor's house than it is to the intruder. It is not the weapon of choice for that situation. A shotgun is.

Shotguns can be semi-automatic and I never excluded them from my statement.

Semi-auto weapons are easier to operate in a moment of stress and can generally be more quickly and safely reloaded than their bolt-action equivalents.

As far as property and neighbors' welfare is concerned, that is a question of the round itself and its powder load, design, etc and not the actual firearm that fires it.

Happy to give you my overall position on firearms though, if you want to elevate this discussion to something more comprehensive.

Gun rights aren't for hunting. They are for keeping the government in control.

They are for giving citizens the right to be conscripted to - wait for it - defend the state, basic BYOGuns too, no less.

Please read it. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Try reading the complete sentence.

Yes. Still applies.

No

Worked out well on Jan 6th.

There weren't any guns carried on jan 6 except for those carried by police and the one that killed Ashley

Maybe so but the maga losers tried.

Trust me, if January 6th was a real “insurrection” - I’m sure they would have been armed with more than flag poles and flags.

Yeah right. Bunch of cos play pussies

No sorry, I was talking about the patriots on Jan 6th - not ANTIFA.

I know it moves fast, but try to keep up with the conversation will you?

Why do people believe the 2nd Amendment is for hunting?

They don't. Hunting is deliberately co-opted by 2A hyperfans to confuse the discussion.

Not at all - unless you’d consider hunting like some “Most Dangerous Game” shit and the government is what’s for dinner.

No no, like, this is a thing they always do, like clockwork. "Second amendment, shall not be infringed, come here and take it, besides what about hunters"

If you have an issue with their logic, I agree with you - but you have to take it up with them, not me.

I haven’t seen a single pro-2A argument to include hunting. It’s always the opposite.. the “Well, why does one need an ‘assault weapon’ to go hunting?!” argument.

Well, that's not my problem. If you just haven't been in a lot of arguments with American gun nuts then what am I supposed to tell you? It's a REALLY common line of argument.

Not from my 2A perspective. Not sure who you’ve been talking to - but as a pro-2A activist, I’ve never used “hunting” as a point for gun rights.

I don't care what you would do. You asked "why do people" not "why do I".

Well, if you ever find one - I’d love to.

I don’t care, either. What I’m saying is that argument is horse shit and you brought it up in basically a 2-A discussion.

Then take it up with the people who make it. They're the one you want to talk to, not me.

Haha!

it's a trick question. an assault riffle should be defined as any riffle that is used in an assault. meaning that any riffle can be an assault riffle, but only after the fact. until then, its just a riffle. besides more gun deaths occur by handguns so what is banning riffles going to do?

You bring up a good point. I wonder if it would be acceptable to acquire a M249 that identifies as a squirt gun.

Yeah this meme should be on national news.