As long as it's not something designed to pierce armor (which if I understand correctly has a lot more to do with the bullet's construction than caliber) I don't really care that much about caliber size. There's even some legitimate hunting purposes for really big calibers, for hunting particularly dangerous animals. No problem with that.What are your thoughts on caliber size duppin?
I care. Again, you want to add new laws, show some evidence that it would have a positive effect on crime. Jesus you are bad at this.Who cares? They're still exploitative of a badly written law and very clearly circumvent its intent.
I don't have to. I want a clear loophole in an existing law corrected.I care. Again, you want to add new laws, show some evidence that it would have a positive effect on crime. Jesus you are bad at this.
Just because a law doesn't forbid something, doesn't make it a loophole. The NFA trust is perfectly fine and doesn't contribute to crime. It's a legal construct to purchase regulated items. It is in no way a loophole.I don't have to. I want a clear loophole in an existing law corrected.
Because you're the expert and you said 19.Now, why not limit magazines at 18 rounds, instead of 19?
I didnt say we should limit at 19.Because you're the expert and you said 19.
We can go back up to 20 if you'd like though.
Lets finish my questions up first and then we can get back to yours, dont want you getting side tracked or anything.Or you could answer my question about what a reasonable fire rate is over a couple of seconds with an AR-15.
So your assertion is that the people who wrote the NFA, whose stated purpose was to basically eliminate civilian ownership of "gangster weapons" that were a huge problem at the time, purposely left in the language that enables NFA trusts to exist?Just because a law doesn't forbid something, doesn't make it a loophole. The NFA trust is perfectly fine and doesn't contribute to crime. It's a legal construct to purchase regulated items. It is in no way a loophole.
Sorry, you fucked up. We're going back to 20.I didnt say we should limit at 19.
I asked why did you arbitrarily decide 20 and not 19 and then you said 19. And then I asked, why 19? why not 18?
Lets finish my questions up first and then we can get back to yours, dont want you getting side tracked or anything.
So, why not 18?
Bro, why are you flip flopping?Sorry, you fucked up. We're going back to 20.
I'm assuming we're talking about people standing and not prone or at a bench.Because you're the expert and you said 19.
We can go back up to 20 if you'd like though. Or you could answer my question about what a reasonable fire rate is over a couple of seconds with an AR-15.
What do you need more than 20 rounds for without reloading, bro?Bro, why are you flip flopping?
You wanted to start at 20, then you said 19 is OK, now you want to go back at 20?
I thought we were in this for the children, think of how many more children we will save with 18 round mag limitations instead of 20 round mags?What do you need more than 20 rounds for without reloading, bro?
I went back up to 20 because I'm a giver.