Mike the Usurper wrote:
] I'm not sure the banana clip is illegal. I know it isn't
] legal to sell (or at least it wasn't prior to the expiration
] of the assualt weapons ban about a month ago, it may actually
] be legal again in some areas) but they may be legal to own.
] This falls into the same category as the extended clips for
] automatic pistols which have been a thriving "used" market for
] the past few years. It isn't legal to sell a new handgun with
] a clip capacity of more than I think 9 or 10 rounds. But, a
] number of them originally came with much larger clip
] capacities. The Glocks and Brownings from 5-10 years ago came
] with clips that held anywhere from 13-17 rounds. Under the
] Brady bill, those were illegal, but they were just dandy
] beforehand.

Yes, the same rules for 14 round handgun clips apply. I am pretty sure you are not allowed to hunt with the larger clips. I'm pretty sure that is the case in many states. I could be wrong. I do know you are even required to plug semi-auto and pump-action shotguns to hold only three rounds when hunting in some places. Most semi-auto and pump-action shotguns have a 5-7 round capacity.

] There are a number or reasons that the SKS is not a good
] hunting rifle, in any of it's configurations. The version you
] refer to with the 10 round top box is poor because the ammo
] box blocks the sights, and frankly, it's a short barrel
] rifle/carbine, which means over the bullet flight, it won't be
] very accurate.

You are wrong about the clip. It does not obstruct the sites. The clip goes in the same place as the 30 round clip, only it is not removable. You _load_ the rifle from the top, similar to many bolt action rifles. When the action is pulled back, you take the rounds and press them down into the magazine. You can't remove the magazine without all the rounds falling out.

] Now, I am not opposed to the right to bear arms in principle,
] but I think that the practice is an entirely different matter.
] If I were drawing up rules for what is and isn't a legitimate
] firearm, my very first restriction would be, no automatic or
] semi-automatic weapons. Period. That single stroke would
] make the new rules be, handguns would be limited to revolvers
] or things ike derrigers (which are more than dangerous enough
] already, and bolt action or pump/lever action rifles and
] shotguns. You want to be a hunter? As noted, it's the first
] shot that counts. Home protection? Same issue.
]
] If nothing else, it would mean the end of "drive-bys."

No it wouldn't. Violent criminals who acquire firearms illegally would still have them, still be able to get them, and still use them. People like myself who would refuse to surrender their arms would only be made into criminals for no valid reason. Nothing would improve, only the rights of the law abiding would be obliterated.

I also firmly disagree that its only the first shot that counts in home (or any other type of) protection. If I found myself in a situation where I had to wield a 9mm handgun at an attacker, I'd put three rounds into his chest before I switch aim to the next threat. Maybe I'd only lay one round on target using something with more stopping power like a .45.

Your recommendation for a gun law is very far sweeping. In my case that would cover almost everything I own other then a .22 revolver and a hinge action 20-gauge shotgun. I see no reason to surrender my semi-auto 12-gauge that's specifically designed for duck hunting. While its the first shot that counts with rifle hunting deer, that's not the case for all game. Your proposal would even cover an old .22 cal semi-auto that has been in my family for quite some time. Its not even useful in a defensive situation. I'm certainly not going to let family heirlooms be taken so you can sleep better at night. They have not been used to kill or hurt anyone.

RE: ABC News: 5 Killed, 3 Hurt in Wis. Hunting Dispute