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.
