Skip to main content

View Diary: A New Assault Weapons Ban (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because the "Responsible Gun Owners" (4+ / 0-)

    are in complete agreement that ANY sensible gun control be buried immediately. Why they can't see that that is an irresponsible position.....
    Whatev' This sounds like a good idea for, as you put it, low hanging fruit.
    High capacity magazines still need to be specifically banned. It's not the gun, it's the bullets.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:23:17 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  as a practical matter (3+ / 0-)

      my guess is that keeping the firing rate down low enough to be under 25,000 CIEpM would require smaller magazines.  The main way that gun makers could keep the firing rate per minute down is keeping the magazines small and make 'em a pain in the ass two switch.

      Practically, any 'assault rifle' wannabe under this formular would likely need a magazine smaller than 10 bullets.

      If you wanted to shoot BBs at normal BB gun speeds, you could go fully goddamn automatic for all I care

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

      by Empty Vessel on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:29:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Irresponsible? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Responsible gun owners have learned the hard way that anyone proposing any firearms regulations cannot be trusted. Not even slightly, not even temporarily.

      A quick search through the diaries on the subject here shows how unhinged and crazy the gun control nuts are. We may be stupid, but we're not that stupid. We can tell that you're playing good cop to their bad cop, and like the criminal stereotype in the cliche cop movie that if we just sit tight and keep our mouths shut, we'll win.

      Look at you, you're using a rare tragedy to try to push through legislation that you'd want regardless of whether the tragedy happens. Do you know why there are so many lists of "gun deaths in the last X days" articles out on the internet?

      Because out of a third of a billion people in our nation, the numbers are so small that internet jackoffs with too much time on their hands can compile lists of names.

      •  Could you be a better example of my point? (0+ / 0-)

        EV is suggesting a very simple, well thought out idea for limiting the lethality available to nutjobs and you come in with your big muddy boots and stomp out any glimmer of conversation toward reining in the slaughter.
        "Rare tragedy"? That happens every couple of months? 30 000 gun deaths per year and easily twice that in woundings are "numbers so small.."?
        This is exactly the kind of "responsible" gun owner that we have, in other words, perfectly fine with carnage as long as he can stroke his toy.
        The other word for that is irresponsible.
        And another appropriate word is "enabler".
        And another appropriate word is "loser" since you and your ilk won't engage in any positive way, you will find yourself being regulated by the majority of us that want, no, DEMAND regulation of slaughter weapons.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:24:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site