"If you're a Second Amendment freak, you've already lost the war."

[Robb]

Colorado's hunters overlooked in gun control debate

Among non-gun owners, Mallet said, hunters face a "big time" stigma. With polarizing organizations such as the National Rifle Association purporting to represent them, the perception among many hunters such as Mallet is that they are lumped together as a group of zealots.

Yet, with licensing requirements that include a mandatory safety course and a shooting test, hunters arguably qualify as among Colorado's most ethical and responsible gun owners. And, while many hunters agree there should be limits on the government's ability to legislate gun control, many support several of the gun bills moving closer to the governor's desk.

"If you're a Second Amendment freak, you've already lost the war. You don't get your own F-16 fighter jet even if you have a billion dollars. We trust the government to make those types of decisions, and they've made them in the past," said Rupert O'Neal, a lifelong hunter from Denver. "In the meantime, let's use some common sense and make this place as safe as we can. There's no perfect answer. But you can't not try. That's the worst thing, hiding behind excuses after all the carnage that we've seen."

Although he has no issues with AR-15s or other "assault style" rifles owned by some of his neighbors, O'Neal advocates limiting gun magazine sizes even beyond the 15-round threshold mandated by House Bill 1224. Sportsmen requiring more than seven shots at anything simply need more practice, he said, and they can practice changing clips while they're at it.

Read More: http://www.denverpost.com/outdoors/ci_22776528/colorados_hunters_overlooked_gun_control_debate

[freshwest]

1. Good points there.

[The Magistrate]

2. Sensible Gentlemen, Sir

[Robb]

4. I refuse to discount the opinions of straight-thinking hunters...

...having enjoyed elk loin cooked over wood before it ever cooled, it would be more than a touch hypocritical of me.

[hack89]

8. "Although he has no issues with AR-15s or other "assault style" rifles" - you are right.

limits on magazine capacity, while not necessarily making us safer, seem to be the best option. At least it can be said that gun control laws were passed.

[unblock]

3. "sportsmen requiring more than seven shots at anything simply need more practice"

great answer to those who insist on more.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. The 2nd Amendment is no more about hunting than the 1st Amendment is about forum posting

[hack89]

7. Keep the semiautomatic rifles but limit the magazines seems the best way forward

A magazine limit won't make us appreciably safer but it is better than nothing.

[Bake]

9. If it won't make you safer, why is it better than nothing?

Just to be doing SOMETHING?

Bake

[Recursion]

11. Basically. People want a scalp

For that matter the AWB isn't even all that onerous since the manufacturers will just have to rename guns and somewhat modify their grips. Magazine limits would save Congress printing costs, though, and probably not drive as much panic gun-buying.

[hack89]

13. I don't want to see Democrats suffer an embarrassing political defeat

we have bet a lot on gun control - we need to salvage something out of it. A magazine size limit is not that much of a inconvenience - I suspect that most people that care have purchased all they want.

[Robb]

5. Kick. nt

[Recursion]

10. Magazine limits certainly make more sense than regulating grip shapes

Remind me why changing the shape of rifles' grips is still our party's flagship position on gun regulations? Is limiting available grip shapes really what people mean by "common sense"?

[dairydog91]

12. Actually, you can purchase your own fighter jet (or tank!)

Albeit, sales controls usually prevent private purchases of current or next-gen stuff. People probably aren't carrying out many massacres with private military vehicles because the only people who could purchase that sort of stuff, even if it was totally unregulated, don't fit the profile of a mass-murdering lunatic. First off, you have to be financially loaded (Upper 1%) to afford to buy vehicles that cost, at bare minimum, hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if you could buy current military equipment, the number of people actually capable of buying it would be vanishingly small. The F-16, which is the "cheap" US jet fighter, is somewhere around $17 million to purchase (Not including fuel costs or ordinance). You certainly wouldn't be feeling economically marginalized if you're capable of buying a jet fighter.

Second, you're going to need to have a social circle to keep the vehicle operating; mechanics, restorers, specialized metalworkers, etc. I can't think of a mass killer who was financially successful and had a good sized circle of friends.