0
2

[–] BernieT 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Unfortunately for the libtards, it is a sniper rifle. Oh well, going to need more liberals.

0
2

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

ANYONE can snipe a cop in armor from a mile away?!!?

Brb.

0
2

[–] buford12 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You should try living in Ohio. If you are walking across your field during hunting season with a shotgun, it can only hold 3 shells by law. Also it is illegal to even be carrying a rifle in your field during hunting season and the game warden can come on your land with out a warrant.

0
1

[–] Rellik88 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So Im in AZ. So state rules matter but. I thought the 3 round in a shotgun for bird hunting was a federal law. While rabbit hunting not controlled by the feds, I have no such restrictions, however I plug my shotgun for dove hunting as its controlled by the feds. Also in AZ I can carry all the guns I want. I usually open carry my pistol wile hunting.

0
2

[–] captainstrange 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Theres a reason why congress and senators are going to come after bolt actions specifically.

They're less of an issue than ARs.

Also, in a shooting war, ammo will become scarce, regardless of how much "stockpiling" americans have done.

Patriots will resort to bolt-actions because the damage per round is higher, and distance plus concealment are a good tradeoff versus the fully automatic weapons common to military and police departments.

They will come after bolt-action rifles because without them, hit and run tactics will be more expensive and have to be conducted in close quarters for smaller forces to be effective.

And in the process they'll follow with "well ARs are really like bolt-action sniper rifles too!"

And the rest will be history.

0
3

[–] Thrus2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Bolt or semi-auto doesn't change the damage capabilities of the round fired they do not change range either. The type of ammo and way they are used changes those.

0
1

[–] captainstrange 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks, what I should have wrote was "ammo efficiency."

One shot versus full auto.

0
2

[–] 123456788 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If they take deer hunting away from me, all hell is going to break loose.

0
3

[–] NancyNY2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree, it's all we eat. I love living off the land.

I don"t think this will end well and will be one hell of a civil war.

0
3

[–] Thrus2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Well if you bow hunt you are much lower on the list, at least until they figure out how hard it is to find a bow being shot vs an arrow as well as that bullet proof does not mean cut proof so an arrow my be a totally different ball game for basic protection (some are both).

0
2

[–] My-Name-is-Mud 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The Portland situation has already shown this.

0
2

[–] eronburr 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

First I'll need proof they're doing something otherwise this is all nonsense.
But it doesn't matter what a gun is made for, our right to bare arms is not to just hunt but protect against a military, so to label a gun a sniper rifle is fine because I have a right to own a sniper rifle in-case I don't want to just be on the front-lines.

0
1

[–] WeenieSniffer 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

"dose"

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)