-
Generation Unwed Motherhood
June 11, 2012 | 64 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
May 1, 2012 | 0 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
April 26, 2012 | 83 comments
-
The Best Last Man Standing
February 15, 2012 | 226 comments
-
Carolina Girl
February 3, 2012 | 30 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Gun Hazy
After Tuscon, liberals still don’t have a clue when it comes to guns.
The tragic shootings in Tucson have reinforced this political truism: Liberals don’t have a clue when it comes to guns. In fact, their ignorance of firearms is downright astounding.
Since the rampage, some lefty bloggers and columnists have perpetuated the falsehood, perhaps inadvertently, that the model handgun Jared Loughner allegedly used, a 9mm Glock 19, was outlawed under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which expired in 2004). That’s flatly incorrect.
The AWB prohibited the manufacture of new high-capacity magazines, which it arbitrarily defined as magazines that hold 10 rounds or more. Even then, the ban didn’t apply to previously manufactured extended magazines. The price-point was higher for these due to a limited supply, but they were still available in stores as a used commodity.
Therefore, the notion that Loughner couldn’t have gotten his hands on the 33-round magazine if the AWB had been renewed — or even that it would have been significantly more difficult — is ridiculous.
Even more ridiculous is misleading readers into believing the Glock 19 itself was a banned commodity. Some left-wing writers are cloaking their prose so that it sounds like the Glock 19 was outlawed until 2004. Salon.com is an example.
A headline from Jan. 9 for one of its blog posts reads: “Weapon in Rampage Was Banned Under Clinton-Era Law.” Again, the Glock 19 was never banned, and the ban on the extended magazine only applied to new production, not existing magazines. Even more to the point, a magazine is not a weapon; it’s a component of a weapon.
Readers have to proceed to the sub-head to get a somewhat fuller picture: “The now-expired assault weapons ban made it illegal to make the type of magazine used in the Giffords shooting.”
Partly true, but the blog post delays the full truth until the fourth graf:
Between 1994 and 2004 when the assault weapons ban was in effect, gun manufacturers such as Glock could not market handguns with high-capacity magazines. If the ban were still in effect, it’s less likely that Loughner could have obtained a gun with a high-capacity magazine. Stores could legally only sell used high-capacity magazines at that time, and new magazines could not be manufactured.
Kevin D. Williamson, writing at National Review Online, has an apt response to the argument that Loughner would’ve had a tougher time buying extended magazines if the AWB had been renewed:
The only difference the AWB is likely to have made is that the shooter would have had a used magazine instead of a new one (assuming he did in fact have a new one), and he probably would have paid five bucks more for it.
Why didn’t Salon use a more accurate headline? Could it be that liberals want to mislead readers into believing the Glock 19 is “an assault weapon”? Even after explaining the facts, albeit poorly, the Salon blogger quotes a source from the Brady Center who characterizes the Glock 19 as a people-killing machine:
He also notes that Glock pistols are particularly easy to fire, letting off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger. ‘They are very good at killing people quickly,’ he says.
“Letting off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger” is the definition of a semi-automatic weapon. It doesn’t make the handgun unusual, and certainly not an assault weapon — unless one defines an assault weapon as anything above a single-shot firearm.
So, what’s a conservative pundit to make of all this? Simply that liberals are capitalizing off a tragedy by pushing to further restrict the freedoms of law-abiding Americans. And they’re doing it in a disingenuous way.
But that’s nothing new.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/17/gun-hazy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pete| 1.17.11 @ 6:54AM
Liberals may be ignorant of the technical aspects of firearms, but they darn well understand that the right to bear arms really does put a cap on how far an absuive government can over reach and trample on our Constitution.
And for this, the Left hates firearms.
Maddox| 1.17.11 @ 9:33AM
Conservatives don't kill freedom, liberals do!
ironhorzmn| 1.18.11 @ 6:17PM
Conservatives don't kill liberals, liberals do!
Ret. Marine| 1.17.11 @ 7:21AM
One has to almost feel sorry ( not )for these fools and their disregard for the truth. I am always amazed at their perception of an assault weapon. All weapons, guns, knives, baseball bats, a 2x4, a vicious dog, hell even their mouths are considered assault weapons in this Patriots mind. It matters not how they are handled, all can be used to assault anyone at any time, especially by someone with either a death wish or wishes death on others. It was a nice, albeit all to familiar, try on their part to confuse this issue but, that's just what they do almost every time their open their assault weapons ( mouths ) upon the public. Mr. Bass, you should have considered a warning on this article stating the effects of their ignorance to the issue as to how much harm it could do to the uneducated, something simple say like, this is your mind on the liberal kool-aid, it is an assault weapon of the mental kind.
Bob K.| 1.17.11 @ 8:05AM
Liberals believe what they want to believe. Facts have never made a difference to them.
Brubaker| 1.17.11 @ 9:49AM
Bob, you're precisely correct. Well said.
SC Mike| 1.17.11 @ 8:36AM
“He also notes that Glock pistols are particularly easy to fire, letting off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger.”
Any firearm that can’t let off a round as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger is no better than a stick after the first shot. Single-shot firearms can be fun, especially period pieces like flintlocks, but even wheel-guns (revolvers) fire lead (or even modern politically correct non-lead) projectiles with each pull of the trigger up to the capacity of their cylinders. And they can do so quickly.
BTW, I recall that the high-capacity magazine ban pumped up prices more that five bucks, but can find no data to support that.
Paul Kotik| 1.17.11 @ 8:52AM
Makes a fellow long for the days when men wore broadswords and cutlasses in handsome scabbards. I guess there are laws against that nowadays. Wouldn't those laws have been the first assault weapons ban?
donserge| 1.17.11 @ 8:52AM
It is not only liberals who don't know much about firearms but also some conservative pundits. The difference between magazine and clip; mischaracterization of semi-auto and auto: single action and double action...the list goes on. It also seems that when someone is killed, one of the first reported "facts" is all about the "weapon" (but ONLY if it is a gun).
I saw a recent Hollywood produced movie which showed a man firing several rounds from a revolver and not reloading. His partner (showing how ecologically minded he was) said: "make sure you pick up the spent cartridges from the ground".
That tells it all.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 9:18AM
Sounds like on of them "Green Westerns" that may just be the next thing to revive Hollywood, Donserge.
Let me see if I can guess what's coming:
"The Good, the Non-Recycling, and the Polluting"
"3:15 to Copenhagen"
"For a Fistful of Carbon Credits"
"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Festival Kid"
"The Inconvenient"
"Hang 'em High with Hemp"
Petronius| 1.17.11 @ 11:07AM
Don't tell me: the first one stars Kelsey Grammer, Tom Cruise, and Charlie Sheen.
I'll just get out my copy of Evil Roy Slade.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 12:26PM
Who's playing whom, Petronius? I don't see any of these guys playing "the Good", like Eastwood. Maybe the movie could be set in Seattle coffee shops, so Kelsey Grammer could fit in - it'd still be a Western right? Seattle is pretty far west.
The "Spaghetti Western" is dead. Long live the "Latte Western". ;-}
Troy Riser | 1.18.11 @ 1:53AM
Growing up, my brother and I used to watch late-night B-movie westerns and joke about magical million shot revolvers used by the heroes. And it isn't always B-movies, either. Please watch the movie 'Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid', and count the number of shots fired by Robert Redford without reloading in the climatic final shoot-out scene with the Bolivian army. A single-action six-shooter that fires 8 or 9 bullets is truly an extraordinary thing.
And don't even get me started on 'First Blood', Sylvester Stallone's first Rambo movie. An M60 machinegun that can be rolled around in the mud and then fired on full rock-and-roll without a single malfunction is magical, indeed. Where was this amazing weapon when I was a '60 gunner? I spent half my time in the field with a shaving brush in hand, cleaning the damned thing so it wouldn't screw up when I needed it.
Larry C. Roberts, MD, MA| 1.17.11 @ 9:01AM
Handguns are made to stop people from harming a person, and if that means killing the assailant, so what. If they couldn't stop one from getting injured by a criminal, what good would they be? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Matthew Quigley| 1.17.11 @ 9:23AM
Let's look at the idiotic statements libs make about firearms from a different angle: Not that libs are ignorant about guns, but rather, that they're playing on the ignorance of most non-shooters, as well as those non-shooters' fears about firearms. How else could they get away with saying such moronic things as claiming that a flash suppressor increases a weapon's rate of fire (one of the more ridiculous things I recall Chuck Schumer spewing back in the '90s in order to get his "assault weapons" ban passed).
My point is this: Libs are smarter and trickier than we give them credit for, and acting like a complete idiot might be the way they appeal to the actual idiots who believe the bovine scatology preached by the libs, and then vote for those cretins.
Dan Hirsch| 1.17.11 @ 9:51AM
Fine shot, that one, there, Matthew!
Does Cora still get your name wrong sometimes when she's mad?
Ned| 1.18.11 @ 11:31AM
to follow on Matthew's comments... there are two possibilities to consider: (1) lib "journalists" truly are clueless about firearms, and make their distortions out of ignorance - which errors are inexcusable by someone purporting to be knowledgeable. If they can't do the research to educate themselves about simple facts, how useful are their opinions? (2) they are either too lazy or too dishonest to accurately depict the discussion... presumably because they think their distortions somehow strengthen their position, rather than make them look ridiculous.
Both propositions support Matthew's basic premise.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 9:24AM
You may want to also mention, Mr. Bass, that it takes about 5 seconds to change out magazines, even for an un-regulated shooter like myself.
I really don't know how important the high-cap mag. is, except just for compactness in carrying (2 15-rounders instead of 3 or 4 7,9-rounders). Maybe an accomplished shooter can tell me here.
Of course, my assumption here is that nobody else is armed, which you can correctly assume in states like Mass., Illinois and our wonderfully crime-free "nation's capital". In Arizona, the laws are fairly reasonable, and I know there was a bystander who took a shot, but missed (correct me if I'm getting this wrong) It'd have been good if that guy had been well-regulated too - "well regulated" as in "well practiced", like Amend #2 in the US Constitution prescribes.
bob alou| 1.17.11 @ 10:46AM
With practice, most button release magazines can be changed in two seconds or less.
Fredlike| 1.17.11 @ 9:01PM
The person with the pistol was in a nearby store and came out when hearing shots but only arrived after two other persons had started to subdue the shooter. He helped to hold the shooter for police, and wisely in this case did not pull his weapon.
There have been discussions on some Gun boards about what a closer concealed weapon holder might have been able to do, but no consensus was reached. Shooting into a crowd is of course very dangerous, as well as issues of the police or other concealed weapon carrier shooting you instead of the bad guy.
chemman| 1.18.11 @ 12:17AM
If you take a shot at a perp in Arizona you are responsible for where your slug goes. If it hits anyone other than the target you are facing trial and probably prison time. If you don't hit the perp in the area between the shoulders and the navel (not in the back) you can be facing charges.
Steve A| 1.17.11 @ 9:26AM
I currently own 4 guns. A rifle, a single shot 20 g shotgun (from when I was a kid) & 2 9mm handguns. I have a concealed weapons permit.
I do have a question though & here it is. What in the hell do any of you out there need a 30 round mag for a 9 mm handgun for unless you are a complete freakin nutcase?? In fact, I feel that if your motive is self defense (not offense) & you can't take the hostile out with 10, you deserve to go down anyway. Just my humble opinion.
KeninTyler| 1.17.11 @ 9:42AM
The issue is not the "need" for a magazine of any particular capacity, it is the power of some bureaucrat to tell me what I need or don't. Who "needs" a 350hp engine in a street car or a motorcycle that will do the quarter mile in 4 seconds? It is- and always will be- about power to control others and their choices.
Nunya| 1.17.11 @ 3:13PM
Well said, Kenin.
Robert Pinkerton| 1.17.11 @ 11:16AM
Reasoning by analogy from the proposition that a criminal defendant is innocent unless and until proven guilty, where regulation might be necessary, then, it is incumbent upon the regulating authority to demonstrate why a permit application is denied, rather than the petitioner having a "duty(?)" to give a reson why. You have the cart in front of the horse there.
John Navratil| 1.17.11 @ 12:19PM
Steve A,
Did you really mean to say that one defending his house must be able to do so in ten shots or deserves to die?
I'd like to think it wouldn't take any, merely brandishing would suffice. But if I'm wrong, I sure don't won't to be wrong at the other end of the clip, as well.
WhiteBikerTrash| 1.17.11 @ 2:43PM
Steve, thanks for your input. I also own several firearms and motorized vehicles My one 9mm is a MAC11 with several 32 round magazines. Why? Preban, and 9mm is not a strong stopper. Personal responsibility, ability, and culpability not magazine capacity are the real issues here. So you think that because in your eyes, that those magazines aren't needed I should not own one? If he had attacked the Congresswoman with a jacked up 4X4 truck, would you insist on a ban on over sized tires, transfer cases, lift kits, or the entire truck because you don't see the "Need" for one?
chester arthur| 1.17.11 @ 10:01PM
I own a couple of computers,but why would you need the latest version of windows?Surely windows 95 would do anything you really need,but then again,do you really 'need' your computer?
chemman| 1.18.11 @ 12:20AM
Take a look at the data on the miss to hit ratio for police and non-sniper military and then get back with us on your personal opinion.
jacob mccandles| 1.18.11 @ 2:50PM
Steve, the question should be phrased this way: why the hell would any of you want to regulate the capacity of a handgun magazine?? I can imagine a scenario in which every second counts, no time to stop shooting and change magazines. Multiple assailants. Concealed assailants. Maybe they are wearing armor of some kind and you need a headshot. Who knows? Hope that helps.
Stefan Kristen| 1.17.11 @ 9:44AM
Perhaps, Steve A, if you believe it correct to allow the government the ability to restrict the capacity of magazines, you also think it correct to grant the government the ability to restrict the comments you are allowed to make.
Steve A| 1.17.11 @ 9:51AM
Kenin & Stefan,First off, agree, don't mess with my Mustang. Secondly, I never suggested a government restriction on anything. What I suggested was this: If you find yourself at Bass Pro Shop staring at the 30 round mag for your Taurus 9mm, you have issues, my friend.
I will also add this. For those fans of the 30 mag, why not go fully auto freakin machine gun 50 mag?? What the hell, it's America, right?
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 10:18AM
Because it's not legal, Steve A. You ought to know that if you have a CCL and all your experience. Of course, if I were a criminal or cop (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference), I wouldn't have to worry about these laws.
I don't feel any need to buy that big a magazine, just because if you store them loaded, spring creep will set in, and I don't know if the last few rounds will go in right (if the mag. has been sitting for a long while, I mean). As I said, you can switch out mags. in 5 seconds.
I don't know what these "issues" are? Is that your euphemism for "psycho" problems? What does "don't mess with my Mustang" say about you, Steve?
If someone wants to buy a 30-round magazine, they probably have a good reason - not an "issue". Maybe if you quit writing about it, we wouldn't think you had "issues" about trying to prove you are Mr. Shooter, and not just Assistant to the Volunteer Lackawanna County Sheriff's Deputy, sorry Assistant Volunteer Lackawanna County Sheriff's Deputy.
Steve A| 1.17.11 @ 10:29AM
Mel, Precisely. It's not legal. That means that we, as a society, got together & said, "hey, you know what, the general public does not need a fully auto, RPG or Abrams Tank." I do not think it toooooo big a stretch to say the same for some idiotic 30 round mag. (You are 100% correct on the springs also).
The reference to the Mustang was a joke. I do not own one. Pickup guy.
I do not have much experience & certainly do not thump my chest as any kind of expert on anything relating to firearms. What I do have though is common sense. Common sense tells me you are over some sort of mental edge if you feel compelled to carry these clips, & its not a good spot for any of us.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 11:05AM
Common sense tells me, Steve, that your thoughts on this are wishy-washy. You told us a while back that you are not for regulation of anything. Now you say that you don't think it's too big a stretch to ban 30-round mags.
I don't think you understand the US Constitution, especially Amend. #2 of the Bill of Rights. There is no "not too big a stretch" language written in there, unless the web-site I downloaded from has a really butchered-up version. Yes, I ought to be able to buy an RPG. No, it's shouldn't be (and isn't right now) legal to use it against people or property.
I don't think anybody is really "compelled" to buy a big-capacity magazine, Steve. Why can't you just understand freedom? I feel that, if I decided I kind of liked these, there should be no law preventing me from buying one. I also understand that most of these laws are written and pushed through by people who don't want to stop at limiting magazine capacity. There will be another step and then another step - can you not even see that from the recent past (start with 1968).
Let me ask you this, Steve: Common sense tells me that, though I am forced to buy only one type of spout (C.A.R.B. type with valve and short spout that will break shortly) for gasoline cans*, I can pick up a few pieces of hose, so these spouts can still be used to fuel a vehicle when it's out of gas. Does that mean someone who gets really pissed at the auto parts store (not mentioning any names here) because you can no longer find a standard, usable spout on any can, is over some sort of mental edge?
* Try it. Go to Target, Advance Auto, Auto-Zone, K-mart, etc. You will find only one kind of spout, and you may think you teleported to a former Soviet East Bloc country. "Zis iss zee spout, Comrade!! Are you ofer zee meental edge, Comrade?"
Steve A| 1.17.11 @ 11:17AM
Mel, You maks a good point. Am I wishy washy, a bit I suppose. I agree with your point on incrementalism. No question, that is the goal.
You did lose me on the spout analogy though. Maybe I need another cup of coffee.
Here is my overall point: It seems to me that a common theme in these types of episodes is that they (those victims capeable) tend to take down the maniacs when they have to pause to reload. Even if it is 5 seconds. If you limit the clip size, legally, to let's say 15, I say less people are shot in Arizona & elsewhere in the future because the vast majority of these lunatics are not smart enough to alter the gas can spout (or clip).
Also: If it comes down to defending ourselves against an oppressive government one day, I really do not see the 30 round clip being the deciding factor. I believe we can make common sense restrictions on firearm use for general pop. without jeopardizing 2nd amendment (we already have).
I am attempting to foster a debate & make you justify your belief that you have every right to own an RPG, fully auto machine gun, 30 rd clip or whatever else. You need to think it through. I seek to be influenced by persuasive, common sense arguments.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 11:42AM
"Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That closes most of my case - I will elaborate with another post that part about the gas can spouts. I don't think I explained well what I meant by that.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 12:20PM
Steve, about the spouts now: Yeah, it sounds trivial. I know that the purpose of writing a US Constitution and forming the Union was to allow for a common defense and a common monetary system (NO, without a central bank - read the document). That's what this article is about; people may be deciding to read the Law of the Land, which is a baby step on the road to thinking about making the Fed. Gov't comply with said Law of the Land.
The State of California, Steve decided that the little amount of volatile compounds coming for the 5/8"-D hole at the end of most gasoline spouts is a HAZARD of immense proportions. Now, if you keep in mind that it's the land of fruits and nuts, you should understand why they think that this SCARY amount of volatiles INTERACTING with the atmosphere is worse than unlimited Mexican immigration, Moslem crotch-bombers, the Big 'Un (Quake that is...), running-out-of-water and bankruptcy combined. That's their business unless the CA Constitution says otherwise (if there is one). So they have ruled that the only spout permissible on a portable gas can (case you can't picture it, the 1, 2, or 5 gallon red plastic cans) is a dicked-up, complicated piece of easily breakable plastic crap.
That's OK, it's their business - we live in a different state that doesn't take too kindly to that nonsense from the land of fruits and nuts. Au Contraire!, says Fedzilla. They have mandated the California Air Resource Board (C.A.R.B.) spouts throughout these untied states. They have no authority to do that, as, in fact, Amendments 9/10 of the Law of the Land, say they may not.
So, we end up with nannystate crap like no sales of light-bulbs that you want (coming), 3-gallon, 2-flush toilets and a million other things, like only one type of gas-can-spout to be sold at store - very much like a USSA would have, don't you think?
This is not even the serious stuff, like random unreasonable searches (now at airports, but coming to a venue near you), stops for "your papers" (OK, they're plastic now, but same damn idea) without probably cause, roadblocks, no-knock night-time raids of houses, etc.
You don't live in a free country anymore, Steve. See what's coming down the road, and don't let people tell you about "common-sense reforms", when they will take you further down this road in the wrong direction.
Yes, a 30 round mag wouldn't be nearly as important as a 50 Caliber weapon and good sniper rifles if it were defense against the realm. Also, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
Nunya| 1.17.11 @ 3:26PM
Steve and Mel, while I don't consider myself an expert on history or firearms or the like, I have read quite a bit on the history of the 2nd Amendment. Based on my reading and the fact that the founders didn't want a standing army (we were ALL supposed to be part of defending the country, similar to Switzerland), I would be willing to bet that ANY weapon that was available to the federal government would have been included in the amendment--not just firearms. Keep in mind, they had just finished fighting a war a couple of years before the Constitution was written, and they expected each township to be able to protect itself, so cannons were common and everyone had guns. The "militia" referred to by the amendment was typically all able-bodied men who could carry a firearm (although the definition differed in different states--some stated between the ages of 16-60).
I fully expect that had RPG's had been available to the founders, they would have been included in the amendment. ANY "reasonable" limitation on weapons only leads to more "reasonable" limitations and more restrictive controls. Every time.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 4:23PM
I couldn't have said it better myself, Nunya, and I didn't.
Correct.
ironhorzmn| 1.18.11 @ 6:23PM
False argument by liberals. They want NO ONE to own ANY kind of firearm and attack anyone who challenges them as wanting 'RPGs' and 'machine guns' and 'flamethrowers'.
Brother John| 1.17.11 @ 11:23AM
What I think they were pointing out is that 'need' as they or anyone else perceives it is irrelevant. Perhaps he wants a 30-round clip - or a drum, or a pallet loaded with ammo, whatever - for fun, to use to build something else, to glue to the top of his television set, or to wear as a hat. Maybe he wants to keep them at the ready.
Who cares why he wants it. He wants it, he has the cash to pay for it, and he completes his transactions just as I will complete mine. I will not interfere and I will expect not to be interfered with.
It's not your business, nor mine, nor "society's" (a nebulous concept at best) to determine what he may or may not buy that is not harming anyone.
Perhaps you don't really *need* that eight-foot bed in your truck. Perhaps you don't really *need* those knobby tires. This is one stop on the road to tyranny, allowing others to determine your needs and further limit your freedom as they think fit.
Nick| 1.17.11 @ 1:32PM
Steve A,
Are you not aware that the bad guys carry AK-47s these days? With 40 round magazines? Don't you remember the North Hollywood shoot-out from '97? Wouldn't you want a 30 round mag if you were confronted with one of these heavily armed scumbags?
Also, you don't have to reload as much with high capacity magazines during target practice.
Heck, I've had a 30 round "banana clip" for my Ruger 10-22 since the early '80s. Does this make me a "complete freakin nutcase?" Or, just lazy, because I don't like to keep reloading the 10 round mags?
If someone who wants a 30 round mag "has issues," what about those guys who own M134 Gatling guns, or reproduction Civil War cannons? As Mr. Tome has pointed out, you don't seem to understand the 2nd Article of Amendment.
High capacity magazines don't kill people, people kill people.
Rmm| 1.17.11 @ 9:49AM
If the guy standing in line behind Loughner had been carrying a concealed weapon legally and put a round between his shoulder blades we would not be having this discussion. It is the notion that others among us might be armed for self-defense and defense of others in this type setting acts as a deterrent to most who are bent on mass murder. Gun-haters do not get this, but think about the other outcome if someone else had a gun. Guns don't kill people, people do.
Dan Hirsch| 1.17.11 @ 9:56AM
"Guns don't kill people, people do" has been around a long time and somehow it only resonates among the respecters of the Second Amendment.
What if we tried, "Guns don't kill, killers do."
This would emphasize that there is a criminal there, not some poor victim of society.
Just a thought.
Don't tread on any of us!
Steve A| 1.17.11 @ 9:56AM
Rmm, With all due respect, um, I think you are a bit off on this one. As far as I know there are PLENTY of concealed permits floating around Arizona these days & I can't say for sure, but I'm fairly certain that Loughner knew this & it did not seem to alter his plan all that much.
In fact, someone like him was probably hoping for a shootout.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 10:21AM
I agree with this one. AZ's reasonableness of the CC laws are good, but probably the most helpful in deterrence of burglars, car-jackers, etc.
This guy may not have even expected to live through that day when he walked into the Safeway. One guy did try to shoot back (READ the POSTS, people, puhleeeze) though.
Wxcynic| 1.17.11 @ 2:00PM
I fail to see how any CCW permit process can be reasonable. It's not a privilege to bear arms. Reasonable is tacking on 10 years to a sentence if you use a gun in a crime like we do in Montana. We tried to eliminate the CCW process 2 years ago but it failed. Maybe this year.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 2:14PM
Point taken, WxCynic. However, I think right now Arizona's deal is more reasonable than all states other than Vermont and Alaska, and that includes Montana - keep trying (elimination of CCW, I mean).
GavInTucson| 1.17.11 @ 8:29PM
Arizona, changed its law concerning CCW, which took effect last July. You no longer need a permit to conceal carry. If you can legally own a firearm, you can conceal that firearm. However, if I'm not mistaken, there are certain exceptions to this. For example, I believe you still have to be a permit holder to conceal in a restaurant or bar.
chemman| 1.18.11 @ 12:27AM
The hypothetical person you speak of would be in jail and certainly headed for a trial. While I want to believe a jury of his/her peers would release him/her the costs of defense would most certainly impoverish them.
OldSeabee| 1.17.11 @ 10:34AM
With all the attention focused on the weapon and its 30 round capacity, the real issue of mental health oversite (and lack thereof) is being ignored. In Virginia, a disturbed young man broke into his father's gun locker, armed himself with several semi-automatic weapons and went to a local police precinct station where he started shooting and killing police officers. He had been "receiving" mental health care for several years prior to this event. The same scenario played out at VPI where another young man succumbed to his demons and started shooting. He, too, had been receiving mental health care. The fact that guns are readily available is not the issue, and don't let the MSM draw us off target (apologizies for the shooting metaphor) with their strident calls for gun control. We need people control, and I'm addressing those who are paid to be responsible for properly supervising the mentally ill. The case worker at VPI had ample evidence that Mr. Cho was a ticking time bomb, and I read that the case worker in Tucson had similar information. There are laws in force which give society the right to constrain those citizens who exhibit tendencies to wreak havoc. Let's enforce the laws!
Steve A| 1.17.11 @ 10:40AM
Old, I agree with everything you stated. The problem is this. If Loughner had been hauled in & strapped to a bed (or whatever) to "prevent" a possible incident because some case worker "assumed" he was a "potential" threat, the lawsuits would be flying before they turned the key on him. They would be filed by the same parents who now claim to "not understand" what happened. No question about it.
VBMax| 1.17.11 @ 10:57AM
"He had been "receiving" mental health care for several years prior to this event. "
That's one of the problems. They load these people up on dangerous mind-altering drugs and then let them loose on the rest of us. Ever notice that a lot of these horrific events take place after the "treatment"?
Turnditch| 1.17.11 @ 10:38AM
The relevant and obvious fact is that leftists have never, and never will, acknowledge and address the crux of the problem: criminals.
Their ideological agenda doesn’t encompass law-abiding Americans keeping and bearing arms to defend themselves, their loved ones, their property and innocent others from heinous criminals, predators and tyrants.
To leftists, Marxists, socialists, progressives and communists, an armed society will always be a threat to them. Fortunately for us free Americans, the Founding Fathers and Framers of America knew this fact all too well…
hunter| 1.17.11 @ 11:41AM
The left had their wild eyed hope dashed to bits when they discovered that the Tucson madman wasn't a red neck, guns rights, anti-illegal immigration, Palin supporting, conservative, that after coming out after the shooter with all their already super biased opinions. They lost what little mind they had left when they saw the truth. Like mad slobbering dogs, foaming at the mouth they are in such a frenzy they bite their own legs. Now they are left open to be seen as they are. Trying to turn the subject to anything and everything to hide behind.
idalily| 1.17.11 @ 4:33PM
True. But one day there might be an unhinged nutjob who appears to fit on the right side of the aisle, and the MSM will play that for all it is worth. We have to be prepared to fight hard if and when that happens.
Intelligent Design| 1.17.11 @ 11:45AM
A well-known scientist and author, Michio Kaku, made a comment on his web site to the effect that he is concerned that a person who is mentally ill can still buy a gun. He is a brilliant scientist, but seems to overlook some major facts in this case. For example, there are probably 10 million mentally ill people driving cars and trucks, all of which are deadly weapons. Liberals continue to indulge in the fantasy that individual behavior can be legislated. If only there were a federal law against too much salt in fast food ..... followed by new laws controlling salt shakers. Liberals are out of touch with reality, and they are a constant threat to individual freedom, happiness, creativity, innovation, productivity, and the propagation of human life.
Jack London| 1.17.11 @ 12:32PM
There's a big difference between restricting freedom and trying harder to stop deadly weapons getting into the wrong hands. It is hardly 'liberal' to think we are not doing enough to regulate firearms - plenty of conservatives think so too.
Mel Torme| 1.17.11 @ 1:01PM
What the hell? Who let you out of the Great White North?
You are right by accident. It is indeed not "liberal", but "leftist", "socialist", and "Communist" to want to violate the US Constitution.
Go back up the Yukon and your sex-partner, White Fang, ya' Commie creep.
Boston12GS| 1.17.11 @ 12:37PM
Who "needs" free speech or the freedom to practice their religion or the right to a jury of their peers or freedom from illegal search and seizure or any of the other other rights our founders (and some of us still) consider essential to our freedom. After all, many millions of people the world over manage to stay alive without "needing" any of those rights.
Fortunately, I live in America, and I reserve the right to protect those rights described in our Constitution, including the 2nd one.
Incidentally, it is perfectly legal for civilians to own machine guns in the US (even here in Massachusetts), if all the hoops are jumped through (one of them being a sign-off by your local Chief of Police or equivalent). There are some states that have enacted their own state-specific full-auto bans, but it's certainly not a nation-wide prohibition. CCW in MA is also not difficult to obtain, depending largely on what town you happen to live in, as issuance is largely controlled by the local Police Chief (but is valid state-wide).
markinalpine| 1.17.11 @ 12:51PM
Just to throw a little fun item out there, why would anybody want something like this baby?
http://www.vincelewis.net/60magnum.html
MarkInAlpine ;-}
Radioman777| 1.17.11 @ 1:28PM
Here's something every martial artist knows: The real weapon is the human mind; everything else - gun, spear, sword, ICBM, land mine, torpedo, H-Bomb, stick, rock, fire extinguisher, etc. are merely tools. Attempting to limit access to tools is a proven strategy for failure. Taken to its logical extreme, limiting access to tools would entail outlawing the teaching of chemistry, physics, electronic theory, anatomy, biology and a host of other subjects.
Nick| 1.17.11 @ 1:45PM
Bleeding heart liberals know as much about firearms as they do about American history and the Constitution.
That means they know nothing, for those of you in Rio Linda!
"[A source from the Brady Center] also notes that Glock pistols are particularly easy to fire, letting off rounds as quickly as the operator can pull the trigger. 'They are very good at killing people quickly,' he says."
Gee, I thought Glocks were only good for opening coconuts and making rap videos.
Also, I guess, according to Salon's source, all double action revolvers are "assault weapons".
The North Hollywood shoot-out occured three years after the AWB was passed. Just another useless, and un-Constitutional, law that did absolutely nothing.
TomB| 1.17.11 @ 4:06PM
There was an episode of Gangland (TLC or Discovery Channel, not sure) where they visited with a gang in LA. The young gents were quite proud of their illegal 30+ round magazine, illegal to this day in CA where we have our own peculiar take on the Second Amendment (which is fine, I'd prefer the states decide these things anyway). Whether they bought it or fabbed it in a metal shop, I don't know. The fact is, if you really want one no law is going to keep you from it anymore than a law will keep you from getting marijuana or rhinoceros horn.
al Gay da| 1.17.11 @ 5:58PM
We must come to grips with the lack of camera control in America. The only way to stop child pornography is to register all camera's and Sim cards that hold more than 10 pictures. Once a pedophile can only sketch naked children with a pencil and paper can we feel safe from the perverts.
Leon| 1.17.11 @ 6:46PM
Everybody who is making a fuss about large magazines should go and look up this term,
"New York Reload."
Speedypete| 1.17.11 @ 7:22PM
Hate to burst Paul Hemlke's bubble but controlling guns will turn us in to Mexico, the sequel.....The honest law abiding citizen has no guns and they are at the mercy of drug cartels, wannabe's and very corrupt government officials. We only have the latter at this point. Wait until state budget constraints empty the prisons. Why do we have such poor mayors and out of touch get any news time?
Frank Drackman | 1.17.11 @ 9:17PM
Abraham Lincoln: Killed with single shot black powder derringer
JFK: Killed with Bolt Action 6.5mm rifle with 4 round clip.
RFK: Killed with 22 caliber revolver.
MLK: Killed with 30:06 Pump Action Rifle with 5 round capacity
I remember when Cops carried REAL guns, .357 magnums named after deadly snakes, instead of that Euro-Trash 9mm round, that was just barely adequate to kill Hitler.
OK, even I can't handle a 44 magnum, damn thing HURTS.
Your ears(even with hearing protection) your hands, and might wanta close your eyes in lowlight conditions unless you enjoy staring at the Sun...
Frank
Paul Kotik| 1.17.11 @ 11:10PM
Like I indicated about 50 comments back, I think we're all misunderestimating the value of swords. I can't see anybody messing with a man wearing a broadsword in a jeweled scabbard. Like, Excalibur. Ever see what one of those does to a hung side of beef ,even when wielded by a weenie PBS documentary producer? Let's found the NSA - the National Sword Association - and give those weenies some real brutal stuff to wail about.
OldSeabee| 1.18.11 @ 10:33AM
Paul: Good point! And we should also require the leader of the country to lead his troops into battle, like William Wallace. But, we should also have lawful control over pointed sticks! When Mr. Clinton sent US Troops into Haiti to help restore civil authority, the WaPo had a frontpage picture of a Haitian man threatening other people with a 4' log pointed stick. Weapons don't kill people, people kill people.
OllieK| 1.18.11 @ 10:24AM
It's not only the usual Liberal suspects predictably dragging out the anti-gun propaganda, Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island, NY, has proposed a looney bill to keep gun carriers 1,000 feet from politicians. A couple of years ago he sponsored a bill to give Eric Holder the authority to define who a domestic terrorist was when a person was looking to purchase a firearm. (See H.R.2159) His co-sponsors were Carolyn McCarthy (single-issue, anti-gun candidate from Long Island), Charlie Rangel and Mike Castle. Clearly, Pete King lines up with the Progressives when it comes to assaulting Second Amendment rights. He is currently the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee. He should read John Lott's book: "More Guns, Less Crime."
Arch| 1.18.11 @ 11:58AM
In 1952, I lived in Arlington MA. Every school day on the way to my 3rd grade class, I walked across Massachusetts Avenue – the road the British Army took to Lexington and Concord on April 18th, 1775. The militiamen who met these soldiers the next day on the Green in Lexington were defending themselves and their homes from their own government that was intent on disarming them.
The Left hates firearms for the reason the Founding Fathers composed and ratified the Second Amendment. They realized, correctly, that the greatest danger to liberty and freedom was not some foreign invader, but our own government. The idea was to make the government fear the people rather than the other way around.
Sgt. Bill| 1.18.11 @ 8:43PM
If I remember right, because of the magazine ban, our troops were limited to the 10 round magazines instead of the higher capacity mags for the Beretta's they carry because the higher capacity mags wore out. The factory wasn't allowed to make 'em.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:11AM
The tragic shootings in Tucson have reinforced this political truism: Liberals don't have a clue when it comes to guns. In fact, their ignorance of firearms is downright astounding.
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:33AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 2:33PM
Fine shot, that one, there, Matthew