On 4/20/2013 7:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:517200cc$0$7155$c3e8da3

I'm not interested in "gun control" other than to get military assault
weapons and large capacity clips off the domestic market.

There are no military assault weapons on the domestic market now. Military weapons are
automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" available on the market are semi-
automatic -- a distinction which is lost on television news broadcasters, and, apparently, on
you also.


Actually, there are military assault weapons on the domestic market, and
it is perfectly legal to own them. You have to pay a $200 federal
licensing fee, and they are REALLY expensive, but if you wanted to own,
say, a military 50 caliber machine gun, or a full auto M16a, you
certainly could, all completely legal. I would ask, since such
automatic weapons are actually legal and available for private
ownership, how often are they used to commit crimes? My guess is just
about never. In other words, despite their legality there is no
evidence to support an argument that banning them would make society safer.

And what's so important about large capacity magazines? If large capacity magazines are
banned, the bad guys will use more small ones. Tell me, Lew, which holds more
ammunition, two 30-round magazines, or six 10-round magazines? Do you have any idea
how little time it takes to eject a spent magazine and insert another? What will banning 30-
round magazines do, except make people feel good because we've "done something"?
Be specific.

Exactly. And if all removable magazines were banned, the bad guys could
carry revolvers and speed loaders. If speed loaders were banned, they
could carry 4 loaded revolvers.