The video below is actually pretty interesting (minus some of the rhetoric, which is kept under decent control). I don't agree with some of the conclusions:
1. Assault Rifles are already banned: Correct, both technically and practically speaking. Full-auto weapons were banned (blessed St. Ronald actually signed the legislation in a kinder, less insane time) — or, rather, put under very tight federal control, registration, etc. There is no functional difference between a semi-automatic sporting rifle that looks scary and all military and everything and a semi-automatic sporting rifle that looks like a traditional hunting rifle. Collapsible stocks and "furniture" and top handles and flashlight mounts, etc., do not make one more deadly than the other.
I haven't read the actual suggested legislation for the ban, but if it's like the previous "assault weapons ban," it's not a useful exercise.
2. There are hundreds of millions of magazines over 10 rounds out there, so limiting magazine sizes is useless" Well, it's not as effective as if a ban meant confiscation, but that's simply not going to happen. But that assumes that anyone will be able to get their hands on a used magazine when they want one. Maybe (if they already have one, or know someone who has one and can buy it illegally), maybe not (if they want go down to their local WalMart to stock up).
As well, aside from the likelihood of people bootlegging magazine manufacture (like bootleg kits to make semi-automatic weapons full auto), it would seem to me that, over time, use will remove many of these magazines from circulation from wear and tear.
3. You can very quickly change magazines, so the magazine limit is meaningless: I disagree. I think there is a difference between a trained shooter, in a rifle range setting, with as many takes as he wants, being able to change taped magazines quickly and efficiently, and a lunatic doing the same, without a fumble or pause or mistake or jam, under shooting spree conditions. It may only add a small percentage chance of failure or delay, but every little bit helps.
It's not going to solve any problems on its own, but it could help in some circumstances, and aside from the inconvenience to sports shooters or hunters who like the larger magazines because they don't have to reload (even if it is a quick, painless process), there seems no harm done.
Google+: View post on Google+
I think any bans have to be accompanied by a buyback program, otherwise they're just not going to work. As you said, there's a hell of a lot of hardware already out there. Cutting off the flow will help a little, but it's a drop in the ocean. Hell, they can even put the program under the defense budget, since the military can find a use for the repurchased hardware.
Well, no, +Brittany Constable, they can't find a use for it because the long weapons aren't military grade (they're semi-auto; military uses full auto), and the pistols aren't uniform caliber (which you really want to have for logistical purposes).
But I agree with you that a buy-back is a good idea. Yes, the people who we most don't want to have a gun are probably not going to be participating — but a lot of guns get into the wrong hands via theft, and a lot of gun deaths occur due to guns being available in a household; anything that can be done to reduce that supply will have a positive effect.
Its difficult to express how little I care about the difference between full-auto and semi-auto as a factor in "assault rifle" definition.