AB 1664 work around the BB
- Thread starter MJB
- Start date
Snake Charmer
Happiness is a warm gut pile
Aeon said:
i read a RAW can only be used on public land when specifically permitted by the managing agency. Also, I read only 10 rounds of ammunition may be possessed at a time with the assault weapon.
I know there is a ton of misinformation flying around, I'm hoping to find experience from hunters who have dealt with this
Ok there is no managing agency, and you can use any centerfire you like. As long as it's legal you can hunt with it.
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/current/mammalregs.aspx#353
All guns are dangerous and require that learn how use them. Projectiles go a lot farther than 300yards,
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/current/mammalregs.aspx#353
All guns are dangerous and require that learn how use them. Projectiles go a lot farther than 300yards,
Macsteve said:
It's not the weapon that's dangerous, It's the person using the weapon. If some one is out hunting and dumping 10 rd on one animal, then that person is the problem, NOT the Semi-rifle. I have bolt action rifles that shoot well over 300yrds.
Illinois doesn't care about long range hunting. That's just one way they limit your right on using rifles. So what is the distance that defines long range?
anything over 50yrds?, 100yrd? 200yrds? It's all subjective to your ability to shot at that distance. Whether it's a Rifle, Handgun, or Bow.
Indiana allows you to use a 300 win mag But not a 270 win. does that make sense? Not to me. but that's there law.
Yeah those are fair responses. All I imagine when I think of hunting with an AR is some dude pretending to be tactical and rolling around then popping up and letting off 10 rounds to
Make sure he gets the kill. Lol.
More power too ya. I screwed with the m16/m4 too much in the mil. I never want to touch one again
Make sure he gets the kill. Lol.
More power too ya. I screwed with the m16/m4 too much in the mil. I never want to touch one again
I've heard it before.. rapid fire during deer rifle season. Not sure what people are thinking but they do it.Macsteve said:
Aeon said:
Huh? Guns are dangerous? How so? A gun is an inanimate object. No offense Bill, I usually agree with you but that statement is why we are losing our rights.
It is the action of individuals that create dangerous results. How we drive a car or wield a knife in the kitchen etc. Until they create a gun with intelligence, your statement is rhetoric.
Just saying...
NBK said:
I think you're taking him in the wrong context. Everybody agrees cars are dangerous, that's why we have airbags and seatbelts. Same with sharp knives in the kitchen and whatever else. Just as those have known risks when using, there are known risks and dangers when owning/shooting a gun
I agree, certain things have inherent risk. Pillow vs knife, dog vs ex wife and so on. Guns are risker than sticks, even though both can kill. It's much harder to accidentally kill someone with a stick.
Risk / Education = Danger
All guns aredangerous and require that learn how use them.
risky
I think we are splitting hairs here.
Risk / Education = Danger
All guns are
risky
I think we are splitting hairs here.
Again, it is the action or human intervention not the object. People are dangerous.
And a pillow smashed over someones face is every bit as dangerous as anything else. People...
And a pillow smashed over someones face is every bit as dangerous as anything else. People...
NBK said:
Thank you!!!!
I once set my shot gun out all day with my AR. Neither one of them loaded them saves up, tossed them selves into my hands and made me hurt some one.
Since some one brought up cars.... There are roughly 30,000 automobile deaths in the US alone each year. The libs will never try to out law cars. Or for that matter alcohol just because people drive drunk. Same difference to me.
Regardless, we could go on forever.
In my opinion, the best way to resolve "gun violence" instead of placing harsh sanctions against scary machines is to subsidize their education. Face it, learn to shoot courses can be in the hundreds and already have a scary aura of unknown to it. If we subsidized education (or maybe a tax write off?) and pushed the image of self defense and awareness; provide reward (like a recognition plaque or something simple) to those who successfully prevent evil with their education. We could effectively turn the crowds from a society of victims to a society of 93 mentality (in reference to the brave passengers of flight 93). We need to stop the bickering of "God damn liberal hippies ain't takin mah guns" and mold it into creating a patriotic and safe America. No pressure to those who don't want to partake, but pushing this image and empowering the people is all anybody wants.
In my opinion, the best way to resolve "gun violence" instead of placing harsh sanctions against scary machines is to subsidize their education. Face it, learn to shoot courses can be in the hundreds and already have a scary aura of unknown to it. If we subsidized education (or maybe a tax write off?) and pushed the image of self defense and awareness; provide reward (like a recognition plaque or something simple) to those who successfully prevent evil with their education. We could effectively turn the crowds from a society of victims to a society of 93 mentality (in reference to the brave passengers of flight 93). We need to stop the bickering of "God damn liberal hippies ain't takin mah guns" and mold it into creating a patriotic and safe America. No pressure to those who don't want to partake, but pushing this image and empowering the people is all anybody wants.