Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gillman7" data-source="post: 881517" data-attributes="member: 2784"><p>Sorry, I don't see validation for this, and even if I can find it, what relevance does it have to legally owned and permitted hunting? This is a criminal. That same logic would follow that all handguns are unsafe because someone found a way to possess them illegally and then commit a crime. That is exactly what this alleged poacher did.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Reference for this? Don't make generalized ignorant statements. That's like saying 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot, like this one.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1) As GTG said, hunting with ear protection is far different than natural hearing, even with the best hearing protection out there. Once again, it is a choice.</p><p>2)So why did your fathers and grandfathers not hunt exclusively with blackpowders or flintlocks? In this line of reasoning we should not wear camo to hunt either? This is just an dumb statement, sorry.</p><p>3) So now my ethics are dictated by others? Freedom means the rights to follow my ethics as long as they do not adversely affect those around me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>+1, thank you. I tend to feel the same in many situations, but would not look down on someone using one. It would be the same as someone that felt using iron sights are the only sporting way to hunt, and if you used a scope, you are cheating.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hunting is dangerous, I sure hope it is, otherwise I am doing it wrong. I thought the purpose was to kill something?</p><p></p><p>Did someone say that their motive was the cool factor of stalking in sniper mode? Not that there is anything wrong with it, I find stalking one of the most challenging ways to hunt, and having a suppressor has nothing to do with that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By not allowing it, you are forcing someone's methods automatically. By allowing it, you are not forcing others to have to hunt that way. That was a self contradicting statement that you made?</p><p></p><p>I agree with all of the attacks on our rights, we should defend all of them. To give even one away cheapens the rest. If the shooting community does not stand together, they will lose more and more. Look at Great Britain, most of them did not stand up because it did not affect their particular enjoyment, until it is the situation that it is today.</p><p></p><p>I agree, pick your battles wisely, and fight all of them!!!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gillman7, post: 881517, member: 2784"] Sorry, I don't see validation for this, and even if I can find it, what relevance does it have to legally owned and permitted hunting? This is a criminal. That same logic would follow that all handguns are unsafe because someone found a way to possess them illegally and then commit a crime. That is exactly what this alleged poacher did. Reference for this? Don't make generalized ignorant statements. That's like saying 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot, like this one. 1) As GTG said, hunting with ear protection is far different than natural hearing, even with the best hearing protection out there. Once again, it is a choice. 2)So why did your fathers and grandfathers not hunt exclusively with blackpowders or flintlocks? In this line of reasoning we should not wear camo to hunt either? This is just an dumb statement, sorry. 3) So now my ethics are dictated by others? Freedom means the rights to follow my ethics as long as they do not adversely affect those around me. +1, thank you. I tend to feel the same in many situations, but would not look down on someone using one. It would be the same as someone that felt using iron sights are the only sporting way to hunt, and if you used a scope, you are cheating. Hunting is dangerous, I sure hope it is, otherwise I am doing it wrong. I thought the purpose was to kill something? Did someone say that their motive was the cool factor of stalking in sniper mode? Not that there is anything wrong with it, I find stalking one of the most challenging ways to hunt, and having a suppressor has nothing to do with that. By not allowing it, you are forcing someone's methods automatically. By allowing it, you are not forcing others to have to hunt that way. That was a self contradicting statement that you made? I agree with all of the attacks on our rights, we should defend all of them. To give even one away cheapens the rest. If the shooting community does not stand together, they will lose more and more. Look at Great Britain, most of them did not stand up because it did not affect their particular enjoyment, until it is the situation that it is today. I agree, pick your battles wisely, and fight all of them!!! [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Hunting & Fishing
Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom