Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Just the military-grade ones that the average citizen has no business owning.
You've gotta define that for me. Two of my guns are quite literally "Military Grade":
1. My CADEX CDX-33 in .338LM is currently used by numerous Special Forces groups
2. My Remington 700 5R Milspec is, for all intents and purposes, the same 700 in .308 used by various sniper groups for short to medium range
I also have a Derya MK12 semi-auto mag-fed 12 gauge that looks like a scary black "military-grade" gun, despite not actually being used for that purpose.
So is your use of the term "Military Grade" intended as a mechanism to conjure up fear here, regardless of the incredible amount of ambiguity associated with it? Because that's what I'm taking away from it
First, I love Reddy45's graphic.
I think your point is a great one. The "anime eyes" in the graphic is how they're now calling this stuff as "weapons of war", with tears in their eyes. So sold on a concept that is misinformed.
That said, let's think a bit further about the angle.
You could have a mag-fed BA, and get some large number of shots off. I could put a 100 round mag (if I was allowed to own one) into my Mossberg BA 5.56 and shoot nonstop. Pretty quick. It pains me to even type that in a scenario discussion to the construct that this thread is linked.
So are the military grade weapons of war the issue? Or is it the capacity to reload and rapidly fire?
Anyone arguing that guns are just a tool are misguided, IMO. No, fundamentally they aren't designed to hit targets or put holes in paper. They are tool to kill/destroy. But so is rat poison.
But like the graphic, anyone coming up looking to "compromise" given the reality of the item, are also misguided. Because there is truth in the item being intended to kill/destroy. That's why emotions come into play, and then that's why people become rabid. If it weren't it wouldn't be used as the tool of choice. So then common sense has to come into play.
IMO it does come back to number and speed. ARs wouldn't be used as the criminals' tool, if it couldn't give access to the same number of rounds, and fire off and reload with such speed.
But a non-"Weapon of war" could do a good deal of the same damage. As could poison, dynamite, etc. So then the tool itself isn't the issue, it's the refresh rate of the tool. The weepy eyes talking against "weapons of war" are misguided in blaming the firearm. But I'm not so sure they're as misguided in blaming capacity.
The best "compromise" (IMO) would be no restriction of firearms, but a limitation on the mag capacity. The issue with capacity, as someone from NJ who has 15 round limits, is that a criminal could easily drive to PA or DE and buy 20-100 round mags. I'm sure I'll be flamed for even being willing to state the term compromise, but there are 20-50% rabid, if misguided, anti gun people in this country.
So capacity limits would only work with no grandfathering and a nationwide enforcement. Block your mags, if you're caught with >10-15 rounds (as an example), you could be a felon at the state and federal level. Magblocks would be a bottom line tax credit.
But like Reddy45's graphic, that's not how it works.
And if they ban everything, then when the next massacre happens, what gets blamed next? Banned next?
Id personally compromise magazine capacity for nationwide shall issue to carry and license (because some level of competency is probably a good thing) reciprocity. But that would be a compromise... which isn't actually in anime eyes' manifesto.
