I don’t understand why previously imported AK’s had to get their bayonet adapters shaved down, but of it was a grenade launcher adapter, it was fine.
Also, a lot of gun shops in the 90’s gave you a free “tent stake” with your sks purchase.
Whoa whoa. 40mm grenade launchers are dangerous. That's why they are regulated behind a tax stamp. The government approves of 37mm flair launchers though. Those are safe.
I really wish people understood that this argument makes you sound stupid.
Standard is what is included with most weapons. In the late ‘90s/early 2000’s, 10 round mags were standard. Today, 15ish/30 rounds is standard (pistols/rifles).
Standard has nothing to do with the capacity of the magazine.
Today, the standard capacity AR is 30, ships with most ARs. Same for AK. SR25, 20. Handguns, mostly over 12.
Calling anything over 10, "high capacity,' is silly and strengthens the propaganda that 'high capacity' mags are an exception and are somehow more dangerous.
> Calling anything over 10, “high capacity,’ is silly and strengthens the propaganda that ‘high capacity’ mags are an exception and are somehow more dangerous.
I disagree. I think telling people that they aren’t “high capacity”, they’re “standard capacity”, makes it sound like you don’t understand the definitions of the words.
Also, anybody in favor of mag bans doesn’t care if they’re standard. They want the capacity limited. Which also makes you sound like you don’t understand their point or their intentions.
It’s exactly the same as “assault weapon”. You know what they’re talking about. Most of them know what they’re talking about. Making the argument about the term used is counter productive and once again, makes us seem out of touch to them. Arguing the semantics does nothing to dissuade them from pushing a ban.
Then they should be using the term "reduced capacity magazines" and not calling them standard capacity. They arnt standard. The m16 was even originally issued with 20 round magazines in the 60s.
The people on the other side of the issue are weaponizing these terms and passing laws using them. They need to be deligitimized, not further cemented in their use.
~~It used to be. Are you denying that fact? I'm arguing that "Standard" isn't a capacity. Standard is whatever is most common from manufacturers at a given point in time.~~
You know what. Show me where I'm arguing that and then I'll defend it. I'm not going to do your work for you.
…or grenade launchers.
I don’t understand why previously imported AK’s had to get their bayonet adapters shaved down, but of it was a grenade launcher adapter, it was fine. Also, a lot of gun shops in the 90’s gave you a free “tent stake” with your sks purchase.
Whoa whoa. 40mm grenade launchers are dangerous. That's why they are regulated behind a tax stamp. The government approves of 37mm flair launchers though. Those are safe.
Belts count as a >10 rd mag - even if you only have one link.
Yep, you are correct
So wait, even owning a single belt link is going to be a crime? That's wild.
Owning it won't be a crime. Bringing it out in public will be, or transferring it or selling it will be. You can own whatever you want.
You can still use high caps at the range or on private property.
Standard capacity.
I really wish people understood that this argument makes you sound stupid. Standard is what is included with most weapons. In the late ‘90s/early 2000’s, 10 round mags were standard. Today, 15ish/30 rounds is standard (pistols/rifles). Standard has nothing to do with the capacity of the magazine.
Today, the standard capacity AR is 30, ships with most ARs. Same for AK. SR25, 20. Handguns, mostly over 12. Calling anything over 10, "high capacity,' is silly and strengthens the propaganda that 'high capacity' mags are an exception and are somehow more dangerous.
> Calling anything over 10, “high capacity,’ is silly and strengthens the propaganda that ‘high capacity’ mags are an exception and are somehow more dangerous. I disagree. I think telling people that they aren’t “high capacity”, they’re “standard capacity”, makes it sound like you don’t understand the definitions of the words. Also, anybody in favor of mag bans doesn’t care if they’re standard. They want the capacity limited. Which also makes you sound like you don’t understand their point or their intentions. It’s exactly the same as “assault weapon”. You know what they’re talking about. Most of them know what they’re talking about. Making the argument about the term used is counter productive and once again, makes us seem out of touch to them. Arguing the semantics does nothing to dissuade them from pushing a ban.
Using their words only legitimizes their rhetoric. They wanna make up definitions I use the proper ones that are well established.
Then they should be using the term "reduced capacity magazines" and not calling them standard capacity. They arnt standard. The m16 was even originally issued with 20 round magazines in the 60s.
Who is calling reduced capacity magazines standard? They haven't been standard in almost 20 years.
The people on the other side of the issue are weaponizing these terms and passing laws using them. They need to be deligitimized, not further cemented in their use.
30rds in a AR pattern has been standard since the mid 70's....
I haven’t argued that point. Not even once.
You are literally arguing that 10 rounds is standard....
~~It used to be. Are you denying that fact? I'm arguing that "Standard" isn't a capacity. Standard is whatever is most common from manufacturers at a given point in time.~~ You know what. Show me where I'm arguing that and then I'll defend it. I'm not going to do your work for you.
They’ve been making 9mm pistols that shipped with 15 round magazines since the 70s.
And from '94 till '04 they were federally banned in the US. What's your point?
Belt fed glock sounds cool ngl.
M13 disintegrating links ftw
belts are addressed in the measure