Skip to main content

View Diary: Instead of "Assault Weapons", how about a fire-rate restriction? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree with your feasiblity standards. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh

    Yours seem to be 'inconvenience' or 'no licensure allowed.'.

    I did not ban weapons with a fire rate exceeding (r/t), but I did require it stay on your private property and that you have a personal license to own and handle such a weapon in a civilian capacity. Therefore, you do not have to buy a modification or otherwise be banned from using a gun you already own.

    I never, ever, ever brought up automatic weapons.

    The video is irrelevant for two reasons: 1, the % of revolver owners who could perform that is extremely, extremely low...and 2, I would be just fine with the fire rate restriction covering a revolver that could go through 12 rounds (including a reload) in 3 seconds. Notice he's not shooting at moving targets.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:11:12 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Politics (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site