Keep your AR 15s

Existing high capacity magazines could still be possessed and bought/sold by the public under the 1994 AWB, new magazines had to have a date stamp on them and/or “LE/Military use only”. So any of the billions of high capacity magazines with no markings or date stamps were still considered legal for civilian ownership. The only real impact was it made the price double or more on existing magazines, like they went from $10 to $25 at the time.

Weren’t much different than the grandfathered ones. To comply with the ban they simply had to remove the muzzle device, bayonet lug, and have a fixed stock, everything else functioned the same.

the Senate dropped the ball by not renewing the AWB, W stated that he would sign the legislation if it made it to his desk.

That he said that knowing full well that it was never going to make it to his desk.

but I don't know, I just pointed out that it was the Senate that dropped the ball and it wasn't just repukes that voted against renewal, there were Dems who voted against it also for whatever reasons.

After the AWB was signed the Dems lost control of the House, Senate, and Governorships. Many blamed it at least partially on the AWB. I think Pres Clinton himself acknowledged this in one of his books(or maybe it was VP Gore, I don't remember exactly. It was someone high up in leadership.) It's been the source of red and swing state Dems being hesitant on voting for sweeping gun control since then.

that was a big factor in losing the Congress to the repukes.

I think you're right about the Dems that voted not to renew, many Dems who voted for it in 1994, lost their seats and those that didn't could see the writing on the wall in 2004.

Congress never sent it to Bush for renewal. He said he would have signed it if they had.

It expired under his Presidency in 2004. No new bill was passed, so he never got to sign or veto one.

does it?

For the “arms” to function. Courts would likely rule that any prohibition or excessive taxation would be unconstitutional since it would prevent someone from exercising that right.

2nd Amendment rights.

While today a cartridge is a brass casing, powder, and ball, there were paper cartridges during the 18th century that was a paper tube, powder, and ball. The paper was torn open with teeth, the pan primed, and then the rest of the powder was poured down the barrel. Finally the paper was wadded round the ball and rammed down the barrel.

I know this because I'm a Revolutionary and Civil War reenactor.

Compensation would be required for the magazines, plus we have no idea how many exist - let alone who has them.

Best strategy would be ban their manufacture, sale, and possession; plus a mandatory buyback program that pays enough that the majority with high capacity magazines want to turn them in for the financial windfall.

That is the key, you have to make them want to turn them in. Threats of prison won't do it either, they'll know enforcement will be spotty (if not nonexistent) outside of blue areas. Greed is universal though, and will work on most.

if I run for president? Let me know if you're available for the VP slot. I want to legalize weed, make hemp biofuel, and make this 10 round clip thing stick. We've got a lot of work ahead of us.

Or if you find someone better for the VP spot, I'll settle for a cabinet position

What’s your price target per 30 round magazine?

But I'm guessing at least double the average price prior to the ban.

A fair price isn't going to be good enough, have to make lucrative enough that most who have them want to do it.

There is no reasoning with them.

You want to fire a weapon of war?

Join the Army.

we went in with this attitude to take all AR15s we'd get no where. I think are only chance is to do a compromised reduction in clip size. These nuts are WAY too radical to suggest taking guns.

Let’s just stop SELLING THEM.

And Then offer buy back programs for more money than they paid for them.

1) How quickly can a practiced individual change a clip on an AR 15, assuming he/she has set themselves up logistically for the main purpose of maximizing speed when changing clips?

2) How many 10 round AR 15 clips can fit into an inconspicuous briefcase, suitcase, backpack, or small duffle bag?

Thanks.

Like 50+ overall with him at swine point.

Could probably swap a mag in less than 5secs easy.

contained in each clip...

30 x 30 = 900 rounds able to fit into a backpack.

900 rounds divided by 10 rounds per clip = 90 clips.

Am I correct in assuming that approximately 90 clips, 10 rounds each, could fit into the same size backpack?

Also, a 5 second time to change a clip is amazingly fast, especially considering that the gunman was in the building for well over an hour I believe.

I apologize for my stupidity concerning guns, but I really know nothing about them. But by my way of thinking, if clips were limited to 10 rounds, and since it seems like the purchase of clips could be spread out over time if both limitations on the maximum clip size and the frequency of purchase were placed on the ammunition buyer, then the shooter could simply accumulate more clips, stuff them into a backpack, and cause the same havoc as he did with the larger clips, considering that the time to change clips is negligible.

Does this make sense? Thanks.

But VT massacre was done with 10 round mags (and handguns).

The issue is semi-autos with detachable magazines.

During basic range qualification and combat courses we purposely only loaded magazines with say 8/10/12 rounds or so, so you had to practice changing magazines in the course of fire, with minimal practice it’s more like 2-3 seconds

2 seconds is fast and comes with practice.

5 seconds is slow but normal for novices

The rifles and the clips. Require insurance to license, the registration to remain within the law.

If these last two broken monsters had had to have insurance, they wouldn't have gotten the rifles. Insurance companies would be incentivized to have the greatest "arms bearing credit report" background check system ever devised.

I don't think we should be hoping for airtight here, and that's probably not necessary. The convenience factor, the accountability and responsibility factors would change the equation and possibly reverse the spiral we're in.

But let's see if we can get everyone to give us more than that too, of course. If the whole country turns on the AR-15, great. I just doubt it will happen based on current reality.

What companies are going to write policies against mass shootings? The insurance argument doesn’t make sense because existing firearms insurance coverage is usually only for accidents, theft, loss, etc.

I'm sure the law could be written so that criminal activity is covered. To minimize costs companies would do background checks or pay into a uniform government backed background check. Given the number of guns in this country the market for that insurance would be very big.