My Congresswoman, Jane Harman, was one of the only ones on the floor of the House yesterday to use the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords as an opportunity to talk about gun control efforts.
Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat, used her floor remarks on the resolution to urge Congress to restrict access to assault weapons and extended magazine clips. A federal ban on the sale of assault weapons expired in 2004 and wasn’t renewed by lawmakers.
“We should revisit sensible federal laws to control access to guns and ammunition,” she said.
Harman said the exact same thing in 2007, after the Virginia Tech shooting. Needless to say, her position isn’t shared by the majority of the Congress.
Short of reinstating the entire assault weapons ban, is there an opening to perhaps pass the McCarthy/Lautenberg bill, which would restrict access to high-capacity magazine clips, because of the facts of the Tucson shooting, where Jared Loughner was able to shoot 31 bullets without reloading, and gave bystanders the moment of opportunity to disarm him only after the clip ran out?
I’m skeptical, but this was interesting:
A leading gun-rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent “looney tunes” from committing more gun massacres.
Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court’s decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.
“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”
Levy is chairman of the board of the Cato Institute. If he’s willing to acknowledge that banning high-capacity clips makes sense, can we hope that others will come to the same conclusion when the question is put to them?
This will call for some leadership. So far in the President’s two years, despite campaigning on renewing the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole, the only gun legislation he’s signed expanded concealed carry rights to national parks. But as Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig note, this is literally the least we can do:
A high-capacity magazine in effect turns a semiautomatic firearm into a weapon of mass destruction. The public interest in getting such weapons off the street was recognized by Congress back in 1934, when, with the support of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, the National Firearms Act was enacted. It effectively stopped commerce in machine guns of the sort wielded to such deadly effect by John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd and the employees of Murder Inc.
Banning high-capacity magazines is a modest, incremental step that would achieve modest benefits. Research by Koper and others shows that in the majority of gun homicides in the U.S., only a few shots are fired. Only about 3% of all criminal homicides involve multiple killings. But as Tucson tragically reminds us, mass shootings have a vastly disproportionate impact on our sense of well-being and security.
Sadly, the President has said almost nothing on this issue so far. In his speech last night he called the debate over how to prevent such tragedies as we saw in Tucson “an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.” So he can show that by going ahead and engaging in it.
UPDATE: Another New York Democrat, Gary Ackerman, will introduce a bill to stop gun dealers who have had their license revoked from selling weapons from “their personal collections.” That’s fine, and I support it because it allows these sales outside the typical background check, but it has no connection to the actual event from Saturday, which I feel is the only way to break the NRA deadlock. Looking at the history of gun laws responding to violent events, you probably need that connection.




126 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Let’s get the nomenclature correct. Clips are disposable, eg, 8-round clip for the M-1 Garand rifle, but can be reloaded if necessary. Magazines are intended to be reloaded and not discarded after one use.
Google 9mm C-mag for an eye opener.
You could spend a lot of time at the range without re-loading.
Could it be that Congresswoman Harman (along with Senator Feinstein) is one of the biggest apologizers for our ever increasing Police State and Government Non-Accountability (torture/spying/etc) and is overcompensating to the “liberal” base by being among the first to jump on board gun control issues?
Personally, I think she lacks any credibility.
Except for looking out for the rich and/or powerful.
From the link (Hill article):
Yeah, now’s not the right time. The last two years weren’t the right time. And next year is an election year; that sure as hell ain’t the right time.
Can’t propose while healing.
I think this ban was a good idea the first time it was done, back in the ’90s, and in light of the events in Arizona it still strikes me as a good one.
What would be even better is if we could somehow stop allowing unstable people unsupervised access to firearms. Anyone who remembers this incident, where a man on anti-depressants was allowed to hold onto his collection of firearms, and ended up using one to kill Democratic Party official, ought to wonder why we let such things happen so often. John Hinckley and Squeaky Fromm are just a couple of other examples that come to mind. I don’t know how many people who aren’t politicians are wounded or killed by such people, but it’s hard to believe that politicians are the only ones threatened.
What you are talking about here are firearm magazines, not clips. There is a difference, and the two are not the same.
In firearms terminology, a clip is a small device that holds individual cartridges in a row or bundle and is meant to be inserted into the magazine of a firearm.
Think of the U.S. M1 Garand rifle that appears in every WWII movie. A skeletal-looking, spring-steel clip holding eight rounds of ammunition is inserted into the fixed magazine of the weapon. The weapon is then manually cocked, fired eight times, and at that point the clip itself is ejected from the weapon. Look for and listen for the flying clips in Hollywood films like “Saving Private Ryan”.
I bring up this clarification not to be a pick-ass about an otherwise fine article, but because many persons with weapons experience will immediately tune-out an argument that uses improper or imprecise nomenclature.
Best wishes.
The word “clip” is used so often, though, that it seems like a colloquialism for “magazine” to me.
I’m not necessarily against regulating magazine size, but he could just as easily showed up with 4 glocks with standard size magazines and just quickly swapped guns as they ran out of ammo. He could have started chucking pipe bombs around too.
Mark Potok “southern poverty law center” says it best, as long as OBAMA is president gun control will not be discussed.
Remember Obama made it legal to carry conceal weapons into national parks
Mark Potok does not see any one in the current WH ready to fight for gun control.
so if you want gun control porgressives, progressives better elect a REAL democrat in 2012
Quelle surprise that Obama & Team suggested nothing of the kind when it controlled ALL 3 branched of Gov’t.! NO 2nd term!
Politics is all marketing. Long ago the NRA–for all their usual domino-theory excuses–railed against restrictions on hollow-point bullets that exist solely to do more damage to human internal organs than regular bullets, until some bright person started calling them “Cop-Killer Bullets”.
Perhaps something similar is called for here.
Regardless how many rounds they can shoot, why would anyone living in a city need a gun? Protection? From whom? Bad guys? Isn’t that why the taxdollars go to law enforcement at various levels? Many nations have it illegal to carry a firearm for “personal protection”. That’s what the police all the way up and down the lines are for. So why on God’s green Earth would any nation need 270 million guns? Can’t be for protection against the government, because the US military toys would demolish a town pretty darn quick.
Course, he had purchased the gun in November for use in January. Probably budgetary restraints would have prevented the wingnut from buying more than one unit. IIRC, Glocks retail for six or seven hundred dollars. Best bang for the buck is one gun and multiple high capacity magazines.
Child Killing Magazines.
Problem with law enforcement is they show up after somebody’s put half a dozen holes in ya. Definitely not defending the carrying of handguns, which I did for many years after coming back from Nam, merely pointing out the the “serve and protect” slogan used by many police depts is kind of misleading. The police won’t keep you from getting shot or your house burgled unless they happen to be on the scene at the time.
Obama lies and keeps on lying. He often does or has done the exact opposite of his stated intentions. As in this case. Reverse Midas. Everything he touches gets worse.
Or they show up and PUT 41 holes in ya.
Both are big-time MIC gatekeepers in the House of Lords.
That bayonet on the pistol is ridiculous-looking, and likely very ineffective as a weapon (knife in hand would be better). Gun nuts are weird.
You’re right. Harmon is a tool. She is an AIPAC toady and a warmonger. Strictly political posturing as you say.
There is that.
Heh.
Mad Max sells. Gun Nuts love that kitsch.
Either strikes me as a better alternative, plus one pistol and a couple of magazines strikes me as easier to hide on one’s person than four pistols. The bulk would make it necessary for him to dress like a suicide bomber, I think.
Even having to reach for a new pistol provides some break in firing, which is what the crowd apparently used to subdue him. Unless he’d practiced it a lot and prepared, reaching for another gun would have taken a bit of time.
Pipe bombs represent a danger to their makers. They’re a less desirable weapon, I’d have to think.
Pistols are popular weapons because they’re easy to conceal, carry around, and use, yet they’re very good at injuring and killing. Just about any other weapon is a step down in at least one of those categories. That conclusion is borne out by murder statistics, which show that pistols are used far more than any other weapon in murders in the U.S.
I learned, just yesterday, that “right to bear arms” is the same thing as votes. Silly…
I usually reserve bare arms for the summer. :-)
Too busy expanding the Security State, hiding torture, covering Dick Cheney’s ass and expanding Middle East Wars. Too busy expanding offshore drilling. Too busy busting unions. Too busy giving our money to AHIP and Banksters. Busy with legislation to allow guns in National Parks.
My take on 2nd amendment rights: the right to bear arms was initiated and adopted in 1791 .. giving a citizen the right to bear a single shot musket? therefore I suggest that a one shot muzzle loader be the limit, as that was the founders intent .. otherwise I want to own a nuclear grenade for self protection for when I come visit y’all ..
hey Sarah .. duels were carried out with single shot pistols .. :)
Originalism’s never around when you need it.
Cue the Kabuki show, kids. That’s all this is gonna amount to. Move along, now, nothing to see here….
Dueling pistols made as a matched pair were the finest smooth bore pistols made at the time as opposed to the mass manufactured pistols, either flintlock or percussion.
And they were legal.
Nomenclature: What have come to be called “Cop Killer” bullets are not Hollow Points. Hollow point bullets are designed for controlled expansion – Teflon coated, tungsten cored bullets are designed for penetration.
That being said, I think the entire argument about clips v mags, hi capacity v “standard” mags, etc misses the point. These things become diversions for the uninitiated and inside arguments for the cognoscenti.
The bottom line is that we as a society do a very poor job of addressing the fears that lead to a percieved need to carry a weapon and the mental health issues that typically procede their use.
I don’t understand why there is even debate about this, (okay I do, I just don’t know how anybody can defend it), there is only one use for this magazine and that’s killing larger numbers of people before one has to reload. And a zombie apocalypse is so unlikely that I’m comfortable taking my chances.
Or maybe we could keep and arm bears?
How ironic that in a discussion of guns you have accepted an ad that
states(let the bullet decide)Please be more careful~
By that logic, we shouldn’t be allowed to drive automobiles which undeniably kill more people in a month than guns do in a year and certainly weren’t around in 1791.
Nuh uh, not for me. I have 2 bee hives, and my bee keeper is paranoid about bear attacks.
Blogs have no control over the ads that appear through blogads, etc. They’re so sophisticated now ads match the titles of blog posts. Click on any ad and the blog gets a few pennies.
Ah yes … the homicidal driver rears his/her ugly head .. perhaps that should be pointed out to the T-party folks .. return to horse and buggy .. me thinks someone has fallen way behind in the need to up-date the Constitution … now THAT would be fun .. :)
Oh and good day to you .. as always .. XD
Opps, Sorry I forgot about the Beekeeper and honey thing. Obviously we would need some Bear control legislation.
Stop making assumptions. I think gun control is a necessary thing that must be eventually done. I’m just saying that we ought to approach it with an argument that’s likely to work, instead of making specious Constitutional rationales.
A little known fact .. more gun toting people are attacked each year by bears than those who are unarmed .. guns have a way of giving all who bear them a false sense of security .. gun is useless unless you are willing to use it and can get the darned thing into action before your incapacitated ..
You know that’s demonstrably untrue.
Millions of these have been sold, and millions don’t use them for your stated reason. With individual exceptions all use them so they don’t have to reload as often at the shooting range.
Actually, the bears, being omnivores, are after the pupae & larva, pure protein, not the honey, which is just the icing on the cake.
It would be a HUGE mistake for the Democrats to use this to try and pick a fight over gun control.
Besides, who trusts this government to protect us? If the federal government had the confidence of the people, there wouldn’t be such deep suspicion of any/all gun regulation.
There was a time when the state took some responsibility for making sure that its more unstable citizens weren’t a danger to themselves or others. Nowadays, if their families can’t afford to take care of them, or don’t recognize the warning signs, they’re often left to fend for themselves until they manage to hurt somebody.
That’s the real tragedy of Jared Loughner – he strikes me as at least mildly intelligent. It’s likely he could have led a productive life, were his problems recognized and curable. Instead, the history I’ve read suggests he spent much of his life failing at things he really should have been able to manage, and eventually took that out on a crowd of people.
I didn’t know that.
So if I don’t have any guns, and my bees don’t, does that mean me and my bees won’t get attacked by a bear?
(Just kidding.)
Oh please alan! Don’t try to mince words with me, you’ll lose. Claiming that killing larger numbers of people can’t be the designed intent because more people haven’t been killed is weak and you know it. I expect more from you. Been taking lessons from kumari? Get your money back!
Which actually decreases the lifespan of the barrel. Most range shooters don’t race to reload, which gives the barrel time to cool down a little bit. Constant use of high capacity mags at the range will ruin a weapon. Plus, the cost of ammunition makes using them expensive.
Ah ha .. you are making an assumption that my rational is specious? ,, I beg to differ .. there exists a segment of the population that decrees certain actions or Bills invalid as they do not conform to the Constitution .. I merely suggest one could apply the same logic to gun control ..
LOL
Adding any food source into the mix complicated things greatly .. I worked alone in the northern forests for 30 years without ever packing a gun for protection .. knowledge,caution and common sense rule the day ..
I have spent my entire life in what could be called the “Gun Culture”. One thing I have found to be universal is that every gun owner knows someone that they feel should not be allowed anywhere near a weapon. Everyone has a story about so and so’s dumb move, accidental discharge, or just general stupidity with weapons.
My question then becomes: Why are you so adamant that that person be allowed to have unfettered access to weapons?
I have (adult) sons and we go to the range together. Good family fun, not killing larger numbers of people. One’s also got a laser sight that looks very scary, but it improves accuracy (against the targets).
I didn’t make any “assumptions”, I know your rationale is specious. There is a segment of the population that thinks the universe turned 6,014 last October 23rd, a significant number, at least as great a number as the people you’re talking about. The fact that there are some who believe that doesn’t make them correct and is, in fact, another specious argument. No different than Tom DeLay saying he should have been acquitted because “he didn’t think what he did should be illegal”. Yeah, try that next time you get a ticket.
Maybe you should read some more of my comments before you further erode your own credibility. I am very much pro regulation, as you would know if you hadn’t been spending your time to insert both of your feet into your mouth and I certainly never advocated “unfettered access to weapons”. Now, Gonna apologize, slink away or double down? I’ll wait….
Asking again, is there some scientific data behind the number 10? Why is 10-rounds acceptable, but 11-rounds is just too much firepower to handle responsibly?
Furthermore, some people have attempted to make the distinction between civilians and law enforcement on this issue for who the ban should apply to. I’m confused about the distinction. First, a trained professional would need fewer rounds not more. Second, there’s no reasonable situation wherein a police officer would need 33-rounds in a pistol anymore than a civilian.
The above is not directed at your comment Margaret. The below however is.
With regard to how people “defend” the argument it goes something like this. The attempt to legislate away something that people, in overwhelming majority, are able to use safely and responsibly because an astronomically fringe case where someone decided not to is a mammoth overreaction. There’s no good reason for any of us to have any of the things we do, but we have them because we want them, and we are able to use them without being a danger to ourselves and others.
More than anything, even more than the ineffective and purely symbolic victory of such a ban, the most frustrating thing in all of this is how everyone treats this tragedy like it’s some kind of regular and ever-present menace to society.
There are tens of tens of thousands of “high-capacity” magazines out there in the country, huge numbers of them owned by civilians, and exactly one of them decided to use one of those to gun down people in a crowd. If that’s the failure rate we’re going by to start banning material goods (which tends to be grossly ineffective anyway, I mean how hard is it for you to buy marijuana?), then we best make sure we’ve got a lot of ink and paper to make our list of contraband.
Worse still is that the shooter, despite reports, did not obtain his firearm legally. He must have lied on his ATF 4473 Form on question 11e to have passed his NICS background check.
Improve the NICS system, close the gun-show loophole (aided by improvements to NICS), mandate safety training for concealed carry, and end the War on Drugs. Those are sensible firearms regulations that will actually have a substantive impact. Reinstating the cartoonish, ridiculous provisions of the FAWB will not.
heh I’m continually amazed at the number of stories of people who have shot themselves while “cleaning” their weapon.
I stand in awe at your ability to judge others intent .. language is so imprecise .. :)
I’m saying we need regulation and that needs to start somewhere.
I backpacked by myself over a large part of the western mountains. I have my bear stories, including once (a day’s hike from Yosemite) when one ripped a pocket off my backpack at night. It was about a yard or so away from my tent; food was strung up so bears couldn’t get at it, but apparently the pack still smelled of food. Would never have thought of carrying a gun. Shit, I ripped the tabs off my tea bags to save weight. *g*
Sorry Margaret, I realized as I was rereading that I didn’t indicate I was using the General form you instead of a more generic term indicating gun rights defenders.
Why am I wrong? Tell me and I’ll read it with an open mind. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.
Apology accepted. :)
Our local Sheriff recently put a .40 round through his hand. “It was a new weapon” and he was just “familiarizing” himself with it.
Dunno if he familiarized himself with the gun but it sounds like he got to know the bullet up close and personal…
Ha ha … ah yes.. I remember once helping a friend move his cattle up into his alpine pasture .. during the night a grizzly went thru our camp and panicked the horses to the point they broke their halters and split for home … luckily the 18 mile walk out of the mountains was mostly downhill ..
The very last time I fired a weapon I panicked and infuriated the range officer. I got hit with a spent ricochet in the leg and I staggered away from my lane clutching my leg and I told him I’d been shot. Then I held up the flat, spent round. I got banned from the NAS Miramar gun range. :-D
I always like to ensure it’s unloaded before I “familiarize” myself with one. Had a guy try to hand me a loaded Baretta .380 auto in a living room crowded with people couple years ago. Idiot.
Then perhaps we should start if from a place of objectivity rather than emotional value judgements, which is all the “high-capacity” scaremongering is.
If it were true that the only reason to have a high-capacity magazine was to gun down as many people as possible without reloading, and there are thousands and thousands of high-capacity magazines out there, then it should follow that we’d be seeing a lot more of these mass-shootings specifically using those magazines. Evidently, people have found other uses for them besides just killing lots of people.
I agree that the discussion needs to get started, and that’s exactly why I’ve been so adamant about not wasting time on the irrational, emotional, arbitrary, and ineffective. Unfortunately proposals of that nature are all that’s available to us from our political class and media evidently.
True, but ruining your gun or using up a bunch of ammo is a financial decision.
If the only use for this magazine was killing larger numbers of people before one has to reload, that’d be different.
Ha ha .. was the brass still hot? .. that will shake ya up the first few times .. I got one inside my ear once .. I still dinna listen all that well .. can you tell?.. :)
I used that range during the early 70s along with the police range in San Diego. Out shot a couple SD deputies in competition once. They were not happy.
Luckily, I don’t have any grizzly stories. Just black bears.
I don’t believe I was using the increased killing argument.
Speaking of bullets, there’s a movement that’s trying to get gun owners to switch to copper bullets from lead ones, the rationale being that the former is more environmentally friendly.
Living smack in the middle of grizzle country, I have come to an accommodation with them. When given the option, I go the other direction as fast as possible and I make sure I have the option.
Your bees will save you from the bear.
Agreed. That just went back to my original comment disputing that the clips had but one use..
I used to live not too far from you, and we had a 750lb bear up on the App trail that used to attack dogs. It was an attack bear, probably fueled by bees…Oh yeah, and it wasn’t “our” bear…or our dogs.
Again you are someone else guilty of not reading my comments carefully enough. I’ve said over and over that banning the manufacture and sale of guns, gun parts, magazines, ammunition, etc is a moot point. There are just too many out there for the number to be significantly reduced for at least a couple of centuries. When I suggest banning something, it’s not an “emotional” judgment, nor do I take a decision to support “banning” anything lightly, as you seem to suggest. I submit however that the largest tree ever cut down was started with a tiny nick in the outer bark.
Obviously the real solution to violence is to change attitudes, not abridge peoples’ freedoms because like it or not, that’s how most people see this issue. People talking about confiscating weapons are delusional if they don’t think that will result in bloodbaths and people talking about stopping the manufacture and sale of ammunition don’t know enough about what they are suggesting to recognize that will do exactly nothing. That particular genie is out of the bottle and won;t go back in.
(“This conversation did not take place”) Harman and Feinswine (My Blue Dog “Representives”) are both Military Industrial Complex whores and both fabulously rich. Furthermore they OWN the corrupt California DemoRatic Party and are pretty much members of AIPAC/Likud Party. I bet “The Swine” will run again in 12.
No progressive cred whatsoever.
I’ve heard that you don’t need to be able to outrun a bear, as long as you can outrun your friend.
On no. It’ wasn’t the brass cartridge that hit my. It was a spent slug. And you misunderstood. I panicked the range officer, when I told him I’d been shot. I knew it was nothing.
I actually prefer working in grizzly versus black bear country as they are more predictable .. I once was supervising a tree planting project and the second day we found about 200 seedlings pulled out of the ground by a grizzly and left in a pile on the road .. we planted all that day and the next day when we returned, the grizzly had tore down most of our flagging ribbon and left it in a pile .. we planted again but most planters spent half the day looking over their shoulders .. when we arrived on day 3 we found the road in blocked by two boulders about 1/3 the size of a pick-up ..
We re-scheduled that area to be summer planted when the bear would be up higher in that mountain range ..
Yeah, they never are…. :-D
Yeah, I won’t take or hand over a weapon until it is unloaded and safetied.
wow .. that would make most folks flinch .. brass is bad enough ..
Ha ha .. exactly .. either take someone along who is slow .. or kick em in the knee afore you start running ..
Slow friends and a looong camera lens can make for a good day.
Well .. 6″ of snow at 23 below windchill awaits my trusty shovel .. stay warm all … and keep yer powder dry .. :P
Maybe. It did give me a start but it was pretty obvious I wasn’t hurt when I didn’t see blood. It hit my dungaree pants and just left a teeny bruise on my thigh.
A bear attacked my bee keeper’s hives, right in town in 09. Mine are strapped all around to a cement block, with metal straps, so that if they are attacked, hopefully the bear will be able only to knock them over, not get inside. Bees get upset & angry but hives can be righted and survive. Of course, my beekeeper, being busy maintaining his clients’ hives, didn’t have straps around his own. Now he has them inside an electric fence.
I’ve not seen any bears near the house, but they are around.
Were fewer attacks on hives this year, my bee keeper reports, for unknown reasons.
Oh, for crying out loud, any number is going to be arbitrary. When I was growing up, you couldn’t have more than three rounds in a pump action shotgun. There was a plug in mine to make sure I didn’t put more in by accident. Was four a better number? Why not two? It was just a number far short of infinity that ensured that we had a chance of shooting a pheasant, but couldn’t shoot a whole flock. When enough governments in a market choose a similar number, manufacturers will design to that limit. That’s what it was about.
They are around for sure. I heard the bumble bees are not to be found..but oddly this last year we had tons of them…never had them before on this property (TX).
Come On! You can’t have everything! With all the great progressive victories Obama’s achieved! Like… uh, um, uuuuuuuh, huh huh, uuuuuh huh huh…
Since I backpacked by myself, I stuck to trails that were well hiked. That way, if something happened to me (nothing ever did), I could pretty much count on having someone come by to help. One of the downsides of the locations I chose is that humans, many of whom are careless about food & food garbage, is that they attract bears.
I recently read the 96% of the bumblebee population is dead. Recently I also read that it’s largely due to habitat collapse. People mow down the clover in the spring before it can flower and they just starve to death.
The point is that it’s arbitrary, which is a pretty stupid way to measure what a regulation should be.
I pick 115! No, I pick 3! You’re both crazy, the right number is obviously 50 because it’s the most patriotic!
We’re smart enough to be able to do better than arbitrary.
That is just so sad! We don’t mow, maybe that is why that particular group was here.
Yeah, I saw a fair # of bumble bees this year too (NYS). Fewer than usual number of monarchs, though. I have plenty of milkweed in my fields, so, although I don’t get a lot of monarchs, usually see a couple every day. One did land on my bare foot this past summer, when I was reading outside, and stayed there for about 10 minutes. I didn’t move!
I am far left of liberal, so don’t take this the wrong way.
Leave it up to the liberals to find an issue to sink themselves when they are already losing. Like campaigning to legalize marijuana in the middle of a depression. It just acts as a diversion to spend your energy on, confuses the real issues and gives your opposition something to brand you with.
Gun control is a dead issue. There are already so many guns in circulation that there is no hope of limiting them. You will never win on it, and it always serves as an easily pushed hot button to bring your enemies to the ballot box to vote against you.
Forget gun control. It’s a lost cause. Drop it. You are only making a bad situation worse.
The problem is not the guns. The problem is the desperation, fear and rage of the people. Threatening to take away the guns only makes them more fearful and angry.
I so went off on the local school district last year and pointed out the reason their campuses are a sea of weeds is because they mow too often to let grasses and clovers flower. The dandelions and so forth love the mowing though because they grow fast and love the no competition. I’m afraid I didn’t endear myself to them when I asked if they had any science teachers or if they fired them all so they can afford more footballs.
Sorry. In response to IsIs@102
Well said. And the point is still moot. Just too many guns out there right now and with care, they’ll last essentially forever.
Gun control, the stupidest “hey look over there!” issue for “leftists”
ever. My “Stop the rich and powerful from screwing you rating for the
issue”: “negative points”, i.e. it helps the rich and powerful dominate
even more in the future.
No healthcare means 50,000+/yr die because our rich country’s government
is too depraved to care. Corporations destroying our economy by shipping
our jobs to third world nations. Military industrial complex looting our
money. No real democracy. Lying Kabuki Parties “of the people”. Country
circling the drain. But hey, you got some gun control!
jeez — I wish you the best of luck with that option of “original intent” at the time of the writing of our constitution …. that would make me very happy !! …. how would that affect the other amendments ? … as the “left” is always fond of noting; that constitutional interpetations must change with the times … then a muzzleloader, today a Glock
I read that it was a Sequoia and it was cut down to make a saloon dance floor on the spot out of its stump.
Whether it’s 10 or 11 is arbitrary. A standard saying that it’s got to be a number that will cover any magazines that can fit inside the handle of the most popular handguns, which is the sort of number we’re talking about here, is not. Legislation would be written that way. You didn’t read all of my comment carefully, or you’d realize that’s what I’m saying. That’s a practical limit, and worth putting into effect. See my earlier comments for an explanation why.
I agree there are bigger issues. I’ve mentioned some related directly to this incident, as have others. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
Then you just use a double-stack magazine and quickly find yourself with a 20-round magazine that fits in a full-size 9mm pistol without any trouble at all.
To your other comment, it’s definitely not worth doing. Material prohibitions are huge unmitigated failures when there’s a demand, and the contraband is relatively easy to produce or retrofit.
We’ve been working very, very hard at one for 40-years, and ironically its the overwhelming source of gun-violence in this country.
I guess what gets me really sick of these “minor issues” is that many DemoRat’s will pick a pet “progressive” issue, but will suck at most of the other progressive issues (such as important ones like beating on the corporations). Then they will proclaim how great they are because they are “champions” of the liberal issue. But then “woe is me”, the other democrats are not on board with my “pet issue”, so we can’t pass it, and even more “tragic” I am not on board with the other Democrat’s “pet issues” so no go there too.
“But hey, the DemoRatic party is “open minded”, “respect the $opinions$ of its member $politicans$” and is a “big tent” (i.e., defacto no real platform) so we can’t do anything. Sorry.”
Or, Democrats: “We just got a hernia lifting this tiny pebble (passed some minor issue after much ballyhoo), aren’t we great!
I hate “minor issues”.
Sorry, beav, but your argument is, pardon the pun, shoot full of holes.
First of all, police don’t prevent crimes, they catch criminals after the fact. In various court cases and in many state constitutions, it is quite clear that the government at the state or local level has no affirmative responsibility to protect people. (If it did, then every time it failed to do so, the injured party or their heirs could sue from negligence and failure to deliver services.)
Second, military power to put down a popular insurrection against a dictatorial government often doesn’t work. Any military official will tell you that fighting an insurgency or a civil war is far harder than a conventional war. You can’t tell the enemy by sight until they do something, until they set off a bomb or start shooting. If they shoot from cover, sometimes you can’t even pinpoint where the shot(s) came from. There is also the problem of soldiers being reluctant to shoot their own countrymen. This would be especially true in the U.S. Hell, even in the old USSR, the turning point came when Soviet tank commanders refused to fire on the Russian people.
As often happens when the banning of guns or related products is in the news, sale of those items skyrocket. When Obama became President two years ago, for example, ammunition sales went through the roof. So much so that retailers ran out of much of their stock and prices went up 25-50%. Supply and demand tensions were exacerbated because of the limited warehousing of ammunition and the length of the supply chain that goes all the way back to copper and lead mines.
The response to this consumer generated “crisis”? A whole lot of gun folks assumed that their fears had come true. Conspiracy theories and rumors trying to explain the waning supply of ammo swirled. In fact, the fear that the Obama administration would put the kibosh on gun ownership and ammunition availability (fear-mongering heavily pushed by the NRA) led to many gun owners creating the very situation they feared and assumed others would do to them. Well, they did it to themselves.
Just this morning I got an email ad from an ammunition and gun supply retailer advertising a sale on high capacity magazines, mainly for 9mm and .223 (AR-15 round). I suspect these products will all be off the shelves in the next week.
Heh, not so sure the US military would have any problem killing its own citizens:
Commander: Fire the nuke at the American town.
Soldier: But they are American Citizens!
Commander: We have good intelligence that they are a bunch of Liberals.
Soldier: Bombs away!
I’m in the same boat. Worst money I ever spent was maxing out my contribution to FeinSwine’s first campaign.
A 750lb bear on the Appalachian Trail? Are you sure we aren’t talkin’ “rural myth” here? Far as I know, black bears only get up to about 450lbs, and 750lb brown/grizz are only found in the west and upper northwest.
Sheesh. By all means lets take a little time off from bathing in the blood of the innocent to address the most pressing issue our nation faces today, making sure the people on the fringes of our society are forced to reload when a small percentage of them flip out and start shooting people. That will show our compassion to the world. Or maybe make it illegal for them to possess such weapons. Then we can add illegal possession to the multiple counts of murder.
Why talking about it I’ve almost forgotten every despicable thing our Democratic Representatives have done to us. If Obama can outlaw “excessively large” magazines that’s bound to calm down the paranoid schizophrenics among us and we can put all these messy events behind us. You’ll feel a lot better pulling the lever for the (D) in 2012 in your local debtor prison knowing you saved ones of lives from a statistical anomaly….
Mess with the 2nd amendment? Are you crazy?
Hell, we’ve got far more important and pressing stuff to be dealing with…
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/10/man-kinder-surprise-border.html
I am an NRA member. Have been around guns all my life. I cant think of a reason why I would need a high capacity magazine for my pistol. I have a Smith & Wesson 38 with six rounds and if that doesnt get the job done then I need more practice. These high capacity mags are not for self defense. They are for guys like the Arizona perp who like to dream about that big shoot out. The trouble is once and a while they stop dreaming and do it.
From this thread, it definitely would seem that Americans are addicted to guns – very glad I was born somewhere else. I found it hard to believe that the answer given that gunowners need multiple shot magazines (whatever they are called) so they don’t need to reload on the firing range, and nobody has questioned that ‘right’ in the face of the mass shooting that has just taken place.
I can only hope we all fall into such a dearth of sheer poverty that when the government offers five dollars for every firearm turned in they will all disappear. Take a look at your own posts, people – guns are glamor to you, face it.
I say it is not worth the life of one little girl. It is not worth it.
The attempt to legislate away something that people, in overwhelming majority, are able to use safely and responsibly because an astronomically fringe case where someone decided not to is a mammoth overreaction. There’s no good reason for any of us to have any of the things we do, but we have them because we want them, and we are able to use them without being a danger to ourselves and others.
More than anything, even more than the ineffective and purely symbolic victory of such a ban, the most frustrating thing in all of this is how everyone treats this tragedy like it’s some kind of regular and ever-present menace to society.
There are tens of tens of thousands of “high-capacity” magazines out there in the country, huge numbers of them owned by civilians, and exactly one of them decided to use one of those to gun down people in a crowd. If that’s the failure rate we’re going by to start banning material goods (which tends to be grossly ineffective anyway, I mean how hard is it for you to buy marijuana?), then we best make sure we’ve got a lot of ink and paper to make our list of contraband.
Hey, SD, aren’t you the Caturday person?
Well, somebody should put this up:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/cat-jury-duty_n_808031.html
Cat, Sal Esposito, Called To Jury Duty In Boston (VIDEO)
Funny. And, of course, cute.
I agree!
And I really like your tag – “hopeadoped” – unfortunately, I think too many here won’t get it . . . anyways, keep up the fight.