I think a good start on gun safety would be restricting magazine and clip size to five or six rounds, no matter the kind of weapon. That would, in a way, take the “assault” out of assault weapons. It would also be easier to implement since plugs could probably be fashioned for existing magazines that would only allow for a reduced load.
As my dad used to say when he taught me how to shoot with his 12 gauge double-barreled shotgun, “If you can’t hit what you’re aiming at with two shots maybe you shouldn’t be shooting.”
I still remember when I bought my first shotgun, a used Mossberg 20 ga. bolt-action shotgun I got at the local pawn shop. It was a three-shot shotgun, with an adjustable choke, nice and light and well balanced. My buddies thought I was a wuss because it was a three-shot weapon. But I was able to trade it back at the pawn shop again for my first guitar, after my dad passed his Simmons Royal double barrel on to me.
I read the other day that when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s ban on handguns, Justice Antonin Scalia applied what he termed original construction to determine that just about any kind of weapon is allowed as long as it’s portable by one person. So I have to wonder, if the construction has to be original to the 1789 Constitution, then why doesn’t the right to keep and bear arms apply strictly to flintlocks?
I have a feeling if all these maniacs had to use muzzle loaders, the body counts would be considerably lower.
historyonthefox 