All four sentences? Don't know if I'm up to it. BTW, I wrote an article for Colorado Outdoors magazine about those goofy muzzleloader regulations. That's not a subject I'm unfamiliar with. Comparing what is considered a "primitive weapon" (and regulated as such) to modern rifles used for long-range hunting is apples and oranges.
Your post questions whether we have the "political will" to ban scopes or otherwise restrict equipment used on modern rifles. That skips right past the implication (and makes the underlying assumption) that banning scopes is "the right thing to do" and is not happening because our politicians and electorate don't have the will to do it.
So far as I know, there are zero movements afoot to ban scopes, and no pending legislation. So yes, I comprehended your post, and I can unequivocally say that its underlying premise is without basis.
Slashing the federal budget deficit is something that should be done, but we lack the political will to do. Banning scopes for hunting is just a stupid idea espoused by one guy on an internet forum; a solution in search of a problem.
Polesmoker,
The subject of banning LR guns was the question at hand. You said it couldn't be enforced. I used muzzleloaders as an example and said they could place similar restrictions on rifles.
I don't see how primitive weapons is apples to oranges. It is a tool used to take game animals that the government regulates. Pretty simple to see the similarities. I never said I was in favor of banning scopes, only that it could technically be done and would solve the issue of 1000 yard kills.
You need to relax a bit. Maybe try some of that Colorado green?
Simply curious. If you keep scopes off MZ rifles, then what distance does that limit shots to basically?
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
