I can read and comprehend what was written just fine.
Are you sure about that? I don't think so.
And if you wrote the regs and dont know what they are, well that would make perfect sense given the proof you have provided us here.
And the regs are stupid by the way. Which also makes sense now. But at no point did I argue what they were, and you still haven't shown me where, because you can't. Nor do I care what they are, or of your obvious obsession with them. Or for your going way out of your way at our expense just so you could tell us that you wrote them. Bravo. Congratulations. They suck.
You have a "special" day. Don't sniff any more glue.......
LOL, I never said I wrote the regs, dumbass. I said I wrote an article about them:
If you want to understand the CO muzzleloader regs. and the rationale behind them, find a copy of the 2003 Hunting Guide published by the (then) DOW. There's an article in there that goes over all this stuff.
I wrote it.
I also said I've spoken to the DOW people who were involved in the development of the regs, that should have been a clue for you.
You can't read worth a schitt.
When you're flapping your gums at Mach2, it's hard to absorb information, isn't it?
One last thing. I didn't "go out of my way" to say anything about the state regs, you're the one who brought the subject up with your ignorant question about why anyone would choose to shoot a bore-sized bullet. All I did was tell you that state law required bore-sized bullets, whereupon you launched into a few pages of ignorant BS about how stupid the regs were.
I told you I wrote the article so you'd know that I have more than a passing interest in the subject and actually put in the work to interview the people who developed the regs., plus the state muzzleloading association, plus the NMLRA to get their take.
In other words, I'm informed on the subject, unlike you.
