#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Wouldn't a magazine capacity limit(3+ / 0-)

be far more practical and harder to skirt around? If there is any question push some rounds into the magazine and see how many it holds.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

• ##### not if the magazine can be switched out in seconds(2+ / 0-)

if the goal is to reduce firing rate, why not just legislate firing rate, rather than magazine size?

"Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

[ Parent ]

• ##### The firing mechanism(0+ / 0-)

is just a series of simple mechanical linkages. There is no real rate limit and nothing about current designs to allow such a limit. It is more like one stick pushing another stick. You would need some totally different firing mechanism and I really wouldn't trust some type of "fire by wire" system.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

[ Parent ]

• ##### no, all you would need to do(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DaNang65, DefendOurConstitution

is slow down the rate at which bullets can get to the place where they are struck by the firing pin.  That's why a smaller magazine, bolt-action or lever action works.

What I have done in my calculations is define the power and rate of fire of a decent bolt-action hunting rifle with a magazine that isn't designed for speed.  That would be 6-8 bullets a minute (mostly due to the changing of the magazine).

So yeah, I expect that gun makers will slow the rate of fire through limits in size and speed of changing the magazine, but I don't want to require that...cause any additional complexity in the law will be exploited to evade the law, rather than build to the law.

"Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

[ Parent ]

• ##### The slide moving forward does that(0+ / 0-)

on semiautomatic guns. The spring is necessarily stiff as it is being pushed back by the discharge. As the slide returns the next round is loaded. It sounds to me more like a backdoor attempt to prohibit semiautomatic firearms. They have been around for over 100 years.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

[ Parent ]

• ##### If they can't keep the rate of fire down(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DaNang65

so be it, and still, if they keep the magazine small enough, and slow its replacement, no problem.

I don't care if people can shoot 8 bullets in 1 second, then take 59 seconds to replace the magazine, or if people can shoot 8 bullets over 30 seconds and take 30 seconds to replace the magazine. Either way is fine.

Semi-autos would still be fine, just not ones where the magazine can be replaced in seconds.

"Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

[ Parent ]

• ##### For people who use these firearms in defense...(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Otteray Scribe, rockhound

if your proposed restrictions get them killed, will you volunteer to be personally liable for the outcome?

Somehow, I doubt you will.  Nor do I think for an instant that you'll let such a responsibility be placed upon government.

I also doubt you'll allow such weapons restrictions to be placed first on police and government agents.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

• Recommended (140)
• Community (59)
• 2016 (39)
• Environment (38)
• Republicans (37)
• Elections (32)
• Bernie Sanders (32)
• Culture (31)
• Memorial Day (31)
• Climate Change (25)
• Media (25)
• Spam (22)
• Education (22)
• Labor (22)
• GOP (22)
• Barack Obama (22)
• Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
• Civil Rights (20)
• Science (19)
• Economy (19)