Absolutely! My whole family hunt, and while I don't anymore, I once bagged a black bear from a tree stand.

I only needed one shot, and I never would have had the chance for a second shot anyway, which is normal in hunting.

I used a Winchester 270, which is a very well made, bolt-action rifle. Fire it, and then you have to pull the bolt back and insert another round into the chamber. That takes a few seconds, so if you miss, you're not going to get another shot.

Why didn't I carry an AR-15 with me? I qualified on the military equivalent when I was in the Marine Corps reserves. They're not all that expensive, especially compared to my fancy Winchester.

Why would I have carried an AR-15?

It's lighter weight with a shorter barrel than my Winchester, not a plus in terms of accuracy. As far as I can see, the only advantage is that it's semi-automatic, meaning you can put in a magazine and fire up to 30 rounds in rapid succession, one round each pull of the trigger.

But I knew I didn't need that. I knew that no matter what, I wasn't going to get a second shot. If I missed, that bear was going to take off like a shot, pardon the pun.

You ever try to shoot a rapidly moving target with a rifle at at a range of dozens of yards?

Good luck, is all I can say!

I can already hear the pro gun forces coming in here and saying, "But we use AR-15s for hunting, and they rock!"

Sure, Blanche, whatever you say. Maybe you do, but you sure don't need to. I find that almost inevitably, hunters who argue that their AR-15s are good for hunting are Second Amendment absolutists anyway.

They're just manufacturing an argument, and a very weak one if you look at it closely.