Originally posted by John Scifres:
There has not been a single objective argument opposing this in the two threads I have seen. That tells me there is none. I welcome some data that will support any argument.
I have an open mind but prefer that we get more options and fewer restrictions when they are neutral or positive in their effect on the resource and the recreation.
Several of the opposing statements could be replayed from the discussions when rifles were first proposed. Or inline muzzleloaders, or crossbows, or handguns, or compounds....
