@snood,
My proposal was based around the National Firearms Act (which covers things like machine guns and sawed off shotguns).
Placing large magazines under the National Firearms Act would make the process for getting a large magazine the same as the process for getting a (legal) sawed off shotgun or silencer.
I doubt there is any rationalization that would result in the police chief of a large urban area giving permission for any NFA device.
But people in rural areas would be getting permission from their county sheriff. In rural areas where people like big guns, sheriffs tend to give permission for anything so long as the person is an upstanding member of the community -- no rationalization required.
The $200 tax per magazine and need for permission for each individual magazine should prevent these rural areas from being a ready source of bootleg magazines.
Magazine size is just one part of the problem. Background checks to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people is a bigger problem. Nothing will stop shootings but rational government laws would cut down the carnage.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
My proposal was based around the National Firearms Act (which covers things like machine guns and sawed off shotguns).
Placing large magazines under the National Firearms Act would make the process for getting a large magazine the same as the process for getting a (legal) sawed off shotgun or silencer.
I doubt there is any rationalization that would result in the police chief of a large urban area giving permission for any NFA device.
But people in rural areas would be getting permission from their county sheriff. In rural areas where people like big guns, sheriffs tend to give permission for anything so long as the person is an upstanding member of the community -- no rationalization required.
The $200 tax per magazine and need for permission for each individual magazine should prevent these rural areas from being a ready source of bootleg magazines.
Understood. Let me ask you this - what do YOU see as a reasonable private use for 100 round capacity magazines? Just kinda shooting in the woods for fun? I’m seriously asking.
@snood,
If someone had a machine gun, they would probably run through ammo a lot quicker than a semi-auto, and might see a use for 100 round magazines. Legal machine guns would probably only be fired for fun though.
If someone had an antique Tommy Gun, a 100 round drum magazine might be part of the antique set.
If someone was producing a Marvel movie, I think that Winter Soldier character fires a M249 SAW with a 100 round magazine attached to it. I don't know if producing a movie requires a real functional magazine though, or just one that appears correct.
@oralloy,
Just a question in between: what machine guns have magazines?
My knowledge might be and my practice certainly is outdated, but machine guns here have belts, while submachine guns (like the Tommy Gun) have magazines.
@Walter Hinteler,
Semantics. A container that feeds bullets to the gun. Better?
@Walter Hinteler,
The term "machine gun" can sometimes be used as a generic term for any full auto.
However, the M249 SAW (FN Minimi) can take either magazines or belts.
The M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle from WWI also took magazines.
There were a couple other WWI machine guns that took magazines too. One was not so good, and the other was really good. I don't remember what they were off hand though.
@oralloy,
Thanks.
oralloy wrote:The term "machine gun" can sometimes be used as a generic term for any full auto.
But if that really is so (not here, I must say), I say that the AK-47 is an assault rifle as a a generic term.
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:Background checks to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people is a bigger problem.
Back when I was willing to compromise, I was willing to support HR 8 under certain circumstances:
http://able2know.org/topic/267070-892#post-6881561
http://able2know.org/topic/267070-898#post-6882481
@oralloy,
The Parkland survivors, the "whiny brats" as you keep calling them, organized a nationwide protest of millions of post-millennials, spent last sumer criss-crossing the country and helped vote 27 NRA lackeys out of office in 2018. all before a lot of their supporters could vote. Well, a lot of people to whom they are heroes and the NRA have blood on their hands will be votimg for the first time in 2020, and they REALLY don't like your side of the debate, Add to them the millions revolted and mourning El Paso and all the other mass shootings and you've got a huge crisis on your hands. Maybe you should stop the juvenile name-calling and recognize you are losing and think about why.
@MontereyJack,
The only whiny brat in all of this is Oralloy, constantly whining about how "they're" going to take his guns away.
Trump tells NRA chief that universal background checks are off the table
By Tom Hamburger and Josh Dawsey August 20 at 9:22 PM
President Trump talked Tuesday with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre and assured him that universal background checks were off the table, according to several people familiar with the call.
Trump told LaPierre that the White House remained interested in proposals that would address weapons getting into the hands of the mentally ill, including the possibility of backing so-called “red flag” laws that would allow the police to temporarily confiscate guns from people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others.
Nonetheless, the president’s conversation with LaPierre, which was first reported by the Atlantic, further reduced hopes that major new gun-safety measures will be enacted after the latest round of mass shootings.
“I know the gun lobby is putting the full-court press on everyone surrounding the president,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) who said he was hoping for a process to be set up this week to move forward on a bipartisan backgrounds check bill. “I have not received any different signal than I got last week,” he said.
But while the president was in Bedminster, N.J., last week, NRA officials repeatedly talked to him, according to people familiar with those conversations. It seems the conversations were effective, which may further fuel public anger on the topic.
“Every time he raises expectations, then he clearly and publicly walks away from the commitments he made, it makes the lives of Republicans more miserable,” Murphy said.
A spokesman for another Democratic senator advocating background checks, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) said he has not been told to stand down by the White House.
In the days after the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, Trump inspired hope among gun-control advocates by noting “there is a great appetite” for tightening background checks on people who buy firearms.
Federal legislation mandating background checks has been opposed by the NRA in the past. After the latest shootings, officials across the country called for expanding background checks to cover all gun buyers, including those making purchases at gun shows. With the NRA in some disarray following complaints of mismanagement, there was some hope among gun-control advocates that Trump might defy the politically powerful organization.
In the past, Trump has mocked lawmakers as fearful of the NRA, but he has also repeatedly lavished praise on the organization, whose political arm spent $30 million to help elect him. The president tweeted support for the NRA nearly a dozen times since early last year, most recently lamenting that “our great NRA” is a “victim of harassment” by the New York attorney general, which is investigating the tax-exempt group’s spending.
After hearing from NRA leaders over the past week, the president stopped talking about instituting such checks, emphasizing instead the need to keep guns away from people who are mentally disturbed. He noted in recent days that the country already has “very strong background checks,” a position that aligns with that of the NRA leadership.
Tuesday’s call with LaPierre, which was initiated by Trump, lasted 45 minutes and by the end of it, the two men had no disagreements, the people familiar with the call said. The president seemed more focused on funding for mental health programs and other topics of interest to the NRA, the people said.
For his part, LaPierre seemed pleased with his conversation with Trump, tweeting about it late Tuesday.
“I spoke to the president today,” he wrote. “We discussed the best ways to prevent these types of tragedies. President Trump is a strong 2A President and supports our Right to Keep and Bear Arms!”
Beth Reinhard contributed to this report.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:The only whiny brat in all of this is Oralloy, constantly whining about how "they're" going to take his guns away.
Nonsense.
They
want to violate my civil liberties, sure.
But they can't. And I know they can't. So I'm content.
I mean, I know it's necessary to still go through the motions of fighting them in order to defeat them. But I know that their defeat is inevitable, so it's not like there is an actual threat.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:The Parkland survivors, the "whiny brats" as you keep calling them, organized a nationwide protest of millions of post-millennials, spent last sumer criss-crossing the country and helped vote 27 NRA lackeys out of office in 2018. all before a lot of their supporters could vote.
How many in rural areas?
MontereyJack wrote:Well, a lot of people to whom they are heroes and the NRA have blood on their hands will be votimg for the first time in 2020, and they REALLY don't like your side of the debate,
Oh dear. Are they going to fling their baby rattles at me?
MontereyJack wrote:Add to them the millions revolted and mourning El Paso and all the other mass shootings and you've got a huge crisis on your hands.
I do not concur with that assessment. I perceive no crisis.
MontereyJack wrote:Maybe you should stop the juvenile name-calling and recognize you are losing and think about why.
I've already won. And I know it.
😎
To misquote the Soup Nazi: No gun laws for you!
You should have focused on saving lives instead of trying to violate civil liberties for fun. Your loss.
