I don't mean to insinuate that my idea is 100% full proof without room for improvement. It's only an idea. But it clearly indicates a more stringent path to the possession of hi capacity, semi-automatic firearms while preserving a more realistic/modern day interpretation of the 2nd amendment.Transient wrote:That idea is a start, but it leaves a lot to be desired IMO. The idea of requiring a license like you have to get in order to drive a car is a good one.![]()
As far as using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine', I'm pretty sure everyone knows what I mean and I don't think it hurts my credibility or understanding of the topic, considering how often the terms are interchanged. Besides, I'm not suggesting I be the one to draft new regulations; you and I are not the ones who need to be credible.
I'm sure lots of people know what you mean when you say clip. But you couldn't identify the terminology conflict when asked. This could also indicate your extended knowledge of firearms. If you make basic mistakes like this when speaking about magazine fed, semi-automatic firearms, what else do you not really understand? Case in point, Dumbrain asking about owning a 50cal. He's completely oblivious to how much they actually cost and the availability. Never mind how expensive the ammo is or where you can get it. Then factor in how big they are and difficult to carry around. When you take all that into consideration, it would be better if the only guns sold were 50 cals. Because almost no one could afford to buy or shoot one, and they're difficult to conceal.
All I'm saying is, it's never any good to have people who really don't understand the problem trying to fix it.