Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines

posted at 12:55 pm on January 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

To be fair, former VP Dick Cheney finally points out that the real proximate cause of the Tucson massacre was the insanity of the gunman, but that won’t be the takeaway for gun-control advocates. Cheney joins some critics in at least considering a size limitation on magazines for semi-automatic pistols. Jared Lee Loughner used a larger magazine of 33 rounds in the pistol, which has given rise to a call to impose limits on clips magazines for personal use:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

However, Loughner had more magazines on him when arrested — including two standard 15-shot magazines:

Authorities in Tucson say the suspect in Saturday’s shooting had three more pistol magazines with him when he was tackled.

The Pima County sheriff’s office on Friday says an extended clip was found nearby and Jared Loughner had two more 15-round magazines in his pockets, though it doesn’t say if any of those were loaded.

Would a limitation on gun magazines have prevented the tragedy? Certainly Loughner would have fired the first 15 shots without any problem, and reloading may or may not have given him time to shoot another 15. Loughner prepared for a longer shooting spree, but was foiled when brave witnesses tackled and detained him. It’s difficult to determine whether Loughner had bullets in his gun at the time.

I don’t normally shoot semiautomatic pistols, so I have no personal insight on magazine size. Target shooting would be simplified with larger magazines, but for personal protection, fifteen bullets would suffice in most exigent circumstances. Certainly gun rights advocates will worry about slippery slopes in allowing magazine limitation laws to come into force, but Cheney notes that we have already had these with little impact on the practice of bearing guns. Would this be a common-sense reaction to the shootings in Tucson, or a useless measure that would limit law-abiding citizens and prevent nothing? I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Update: Several readers have objected to the use of the word “clip,” which I’ve changed to “magazine” throughout.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I’m not sure if it would’ve made any difference, but I don’t see the point in being able to purchase a 33 round magazine either. One really needs something like that for self-defense?

changer1701 on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Personal protection doesn’t justify 33 bullet clips. Again, I don’t think they should be banned, but it seems the purpose of this clip is to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.

Why make it?

OK, let’s look at what police use, since their job is to defend against criminals. The most popular police sidearm is a Glock 22, caliber .40 S&W, with a 16-round magazine. A typical police officer will have his sidearm loaded with one of these, possibly with an extra round in the chamber (17 rounds), plus two spare magazines in his belt, total of 49 rounds. So the round count is greater than the magazine you’re talking about as excessive.

Now, a citizen defending his home isn’t likely to be strapping on a gun belt with extra magazines (though I know some serious enough who plan to do exactly that), so they are pretty much going to have just whatever is in the handgun they grab when they hear a noise downstairs. In that case, it might make sense for someone to have a 33-round magazine just for such an occasion. Or it might not. Self-defense is very personal and the proper response varies tremendously depending on the person, his house, his neighborhood, availability of law enforcement, etc. Just because you can’t think of a reason to need it doesn’t mean that need doesn’t exist for someone else.

Socratease on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

New mag-capacity laws will do nothing to stem future violence. They will only serve to burden law-abiding citizens.

dugan on January 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I think this applies to any law passed by congress anymore.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

New mag-capacity laws will do nothing to stem future violence. They will only serve to burden law-abiding citizens.

dugan on January 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM

That’s all any gun laws do. Burden the people who will obey them.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Oh, and Dick, people with armed bodyguards for life shouldn’t be telling anyone how to defend themselves.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

A .22 wound can be as nasty as you want it to be if you can aim.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

If someone is attacking you, you don’t want to wound them. You want to kill them.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines

Works every time it’s been tried…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

This shows your utter lack of firearms experience.

You have no bloody idea how fast a well-trained shooter can swap in fresh magazines. A matter of one to two seconds, if he’s an expert.

Apparently it took Loughner long enough to allow others to tackle him.

Your theory holds no water, because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

You’ll really have to do better than that.

You have no way of knowing that,

It’s pretty sound logic. He was tackled when he needed to reload. If he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

and there is no justification for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because “maybe” it will improve things.

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Limiting the size of the magazine will do nothing. I know people who can reload their pistol fast enough that it would only slow the shots fired by a couple or so. But if we are going to limit the size of the magazine maybe we should outlaw them all together. If the assumption is a smaller magazine = more lives saved then lets make the max size of 1 in the chamber and thats it. :rolleyes:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

nobleclem on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

This just makes me wonder what people would be saying if Loughner had one — ONE — bullet and managed to kill Giffords with it.

Oh wait, I know — “guns are absolutely intolerable in a civil society! we MUST get rid of them altogether!”

It just amazes me how people think they can limit the actions of the scofflaws and the madmen by putting more and more restrictions on the law-abiding.

Aitch748 on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Again, I don’t think they should be banned, but it seems the purpose of this clip is to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.

Why make it?

portlandon on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Lets say that a person in a life or death situation hits vitals with 20% of their rounds (police marksmanship averages around 17% nationwide). With a 33 round MAGAZINE that is 6-7 rounds that connect.

In the 1986 FBI shootout it took 6 shots to kill one of the perps and 12 to take down the other.

BTW, shooters are still liable for EVERY round that does not impact the target.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

.22s, as others said, are very underpowered. However, they DO have plusses when used for defense. They are small, easily concealed, can hold more rounds in a similar-sized package, and rounds are literally cheaper than dirt.

Also, if you connect with a 22, especially multiple times, the slugs tend to bounce and richochet inside the body, actually capable of causing more damage. There’s almost zero recoil, so someone small can easily shoot it.

But most important, even a .22 satisfies the First Rule Of Gunfights: Bring a Gun! It’s better than being totally unarmed.

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

MAGAZINES, NOT CLIPS! MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Sheesh. Today you learned that they’re not the same and now you’re yelling at people about it.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

The reason he wasn’t able to shoot MORE people was because he was using the extended magazine. They are almost like a novelty item and are unwieldy and annoying to remove and replace. Its when he went to reload that he fumbled and was tackled. Had he just used the normal 15 round magazines, reloading would have taken under a second and the window to stop him would have been much smaller.

thphilli on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I’m not sure if it would’ve made any difference, but I don’t see the point in being able to purchase a 33 round magazine either. One really needs something like that for self-defense?

changer1701 on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless ammunition magazines contain more than 30 rounds.”

What part of that quote is wrong?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Depends on what ‘type’ of .22 your talking about.

A .223? .22-250? Or a .22 rimfire?

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines The people’s right to self defense.

Senility?

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Oh, and the .22 is less likely to go all the way through walls to put others in danger.

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM

These dishonest scheming control freaks cannot be given any quarter. They have shown that they are liars and cheats at every turn, and could care less about the will of the taxpayer majority. They have trashed the Constitution and continue to laugh in the face of our good citizens. Obama is the cancer that is rotting the USA and his regime is in lockstep to disarm us at any cost. Then they let loose the hounds of communism and socialism. Not one concession we must continue to rid ourselves of democrat control. Let the states decide and these communist creeps can move.

frizzbee on January 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Being in California, I’m stuck at 10 per magazine. I do not wish to impose a limit on my fellow law abiding citizens. Changing these laws is not going to stop a nutcase who doesn’t follow the laws.

El_Terrible on January 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM

A .22 wound can be as nasty as you want it to be if you can aim.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

A person shooting to kill/incapacitate an assailant in a public setting is likely panicked to all hell, and more than a little jittery with their shots. Best to make the first hit count, rather than count on deadeye aim in a crisis situation.

If you’re not a trained soldier, chances are you’re not going to be a terribly great shot at crunch time, especially if you’ve never had to shoot anyone before. .45 or 10MM or nothing.

If someone is attacking you, you don’t want to wound them. You want to kill them.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

The truth. I doubt that I’d ever forget having shot someone to death in a crisis, but I’d prefer that to wondering if he was gonna get another shot off after I was sure I’d dropped him with a shot to the knee or shoulder.

Shoot to kill, it’s the way the world is. :/

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I think reasonable people might differ on this issue. I shot a Glock 19 last weekend — the same gun I believe that Loughner used — but with the standard 10 round magazine.

Frankly, I would have loved to have had twice as many rounds in the magazine. Loading them is a pain in the ass.

Jaibones on January 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I’m not that familier with the Glock, however I heard that with the extended magazine, you have to hit the release then physically pull the magazine out of the pistol, that it won’t drop clear on it’s own.

evilned on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Depends on the design of the magazine.

Original Glock magazines weren’t “drop free,” that is if they were fully- or partially-loaded they would not drop free when the magazine release is tripped. This is because when loaded the sides of the magazine would bulge out slightly keeping the magazine from falling out of the pistol. They’d still drop free when fully unloaded (or if there were only one-two rounds left in there) but it made tactical reloads a bit of a headache.

Later “drop-free” designs fixed this by lining the magazine with metal that would prevent the bulging.

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Oh, and the .22 is less likely to go all the way through walls to put others in danger.

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM

JHP, call it good.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I’ve been wondering why there were no police there. I would think that there would have been at least one, since it was a political gathering. As a courtesy, if nothing else.

Rose on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

First, the crowd was armed. Several of the people who participated in taking him down were armed. Arizona is just as armed as Texas, maybe more so, since no licensing is required to carry concealed there.

Second, he was tackled while reloading. It isn’t clear if he was reloading because his magazine was empty, or from a malfunction, which is common with magazines that size in pistols. The pistol was designed for a magazine half that size, and it’s hard to get a spring that will compress with the right amount of force through the whole range.

I personally think that being tackled while reloading was a coincidence. He was spraying, not taking careful aim, and was probably through the clip in 4-7 seconds. That’s about the amount of time it takes to realize what is going on, identify who is doing it, and do something about it. If he had regular capacity clips, he might have emptied and been reloaded in those potential seven seconds, and had a fresh magazine and working firearm when they went to tackle him, making things much worse.

This is all shoulda-woulda-coulda based on limited guesswork and not a small amount of complete ignorance of how quick and dirty combat works.

phelps on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Do-something disease run amok. The idea that creating more laws in direct response to a breaker of existing, related laws is intellectually deficient. By definition, they will not respect any new laws.

At what point does the meaning of “law breaking” enter their legislative solutions?

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Depends on the type of bullet, velocity and wall construction, not to mention the type of .22 we’re talking about.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

From Death Proof:

Abernathy: There are other things you can carry other than a gun. Pepper spray.

Kim: Uh, motherf*cker tryna rape me? I don’t wanna give him a skin rash! I wanna shut that n*gga down!

fossten on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

If someone is attacking you, you don’t want to wound them. You want to kill them. MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

A .22 pistol is a deadly weapon. Ask a cop. Or an ER surgeon.

Get long rifle hollow points and shoot a cantaloupe with it.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Will more regulation stop the criminals from having these…magazines? I don’t think so!

Law abiding citizens won’t use them for any other purpose. Who cares how many rounds a magazine carries? None of this malarky will stop criminals from attaining, and using any of it.

capejasmine on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Look, you need to listen to people who are familiar with firearms.

A practiced shooter can get off more rounds, probably more accurately, with standard magazines than this guy did with an extended magazine. It literally can take as little as a second to drop the empty magazine, reload and begin firing.

Anyone recognizing the shooter was reloading would be shot by the time they got to him.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

What part of that quote is wrong?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

The part that assumes limiting the size of a pistol magazine to under 33 rounds is an infringement of your 2nd amendment rights. Not every burden or restriction on gun ownership is a constitutional violation. If that were true, guns would be free and handed out on every street corner.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

The IF A THEN B argument is a joke.

Really? If he had 15 shots instead of 33, he would have run out and been tackled SOONER. Did you ever take a statistics class? Think about the fact that maybe, just maybe, had he run out sooner, the man that bravely saw him out of ammo and reloading as he was exiting the store may’ve not been in that position had he already reloaded?

Seriously. How many people were wounded? How many were hit by the same bullet? How many shots actually hit someone? How many times in history has a lone gunman run around with an oversized magazine and did damage that we need to take this one example and change everything for everyone from this day forward? STOP with all the knee jerk reactions because of this psycho nutbag that didn’t know how to use the gun he had.

Liberalism sucks because all they do is sit around an play f’ing ‘what if’ games all day long. Step into reality, please.

Sponge on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

For the record the best reason to have a 30 round 9mm pistol magazine is a 9mm rifle.

Kel-Tec SUB-2000

Beretta Cx4 Storm

Ruger PC9

Hi-Point 995

mad saint jack on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

It’s pretty sound logic. He was tackled when he needed to reload. If he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

You have no idea how much time was inbetween shots. You have no idea if the time between each shot would have been the same time as a skilled shooter would need to reload(which can be two seconds or less with practice). You have no idea if the magazine jammed and he was delayed in reloading. You are assuming so much, which is indicative of those who have no idea of how firearms work, and what happens in panic situations.

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Can you think of any lawful reasons to restrict people from having 30 or 50 round magazines? Isn’t each bullet deadly? Hell, by your logic, shouldn’t we be able to restrict magazines to five bullets or less? Shouldn’t we be able to restrict calibers? Why do we need .50AE? Why do we need .44 Magnum? You create the premise that the magazine size enabled the shooter to cause more havoc based only on a single incident where that was used. Cho Seung-Hui had no 33-round magazines but killed many more. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had no 33-round magazines but killed many more. You are using a single incident to argue to ban something that has been around for years without being any kind of catalyst in shooting sprees. Typical shortsighted liberal with zero knowledge of firearms.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

I’ve been wondering why there were no police there. I would think that there would have been at least one, since it was a political gathering. As a courtesy, if nothing else.

Rose on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

The sheriff screwed up royally. He knew she had received threats, and he knew Loughner had been obsessed with her.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

but I don’t see the point in being able to purchase a 33 round magazine either. One really needs something like that for self-defense?
changer1701 on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Couldn’t the same argument be made for speed limits? Is there really a need to drive faster than 55 MPH? The government could simply mandate restrictor plates on all future vehicles, limiting their speed (and improving MPG as well). After all, the number of deaths from car accidents is far greater than that from firearms in America.

Who needs to drive faster than 55 MPH anyway?

/sarc

dugan on January 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

It’s called Incrementalism.

Ever time there is one of these incidents; the Oppressive-Left uses it to push for more restrictions on someone’s right to self-defense.

The restrictions don’t do anything, and it happens again. And the Oppressive-Left does it again – they know it won’t fix the problem and we know it won’t fix the problem.

They know they can’t take away that right in one fell swoop, but they can try to do it bit-by-bit.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Sheesh. Today you learned that they’re not the same and now you’re yelling at people about it.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I understand that you rarely know what you’re talking about, but really, most people here know I’ve been saying this for years on this site. If the best you can do is erroneously impugn my firearms knowledge, try again.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Loughner wasn’t tackled when he needed to reload…he was stopped when he dropped his fresh magazine while reloading and it was grabbed by Patricia Maisch.

JohnTant on January 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

The issue I haven’t seen discussed yet is that the last AWB only ban civilian sales of new hi-capacity mags. The old ones are still around and number in the 6 or 7 figure range. All it does is raise the price.

The alternative is to make everyone turn them in and make possesion a crime. Is anyone here actually willing to make gun owners show up at the local PD and turn in firearms related anything that was legal when the bought it?

Durham68 on January 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

A .22 pistol is a deadly weapon. Ask a cop. Or an ER surgeon.

Get long rifle hollow points and shoot a cantaloupe with it.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

So is a steak knife. Doesn’t mean it’s an effective choice of carry weapon for self-defense.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

You can’t prevent the next Loughner from pulling a gun on a crowd. However, if you make access to firearms easier for the public, and if you encourage the public to carry concealed firearms, you can greatly decrease the body count when the next Loughner starts shooting. He won’t have to be tackled while reloading because he’ll be shot dead by then.

OhioCoastie on January 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Do not limit it to firearms. A person with a swords, dagger, butterfly knife, tazer, crowbar, or baseball bat may have been able to end the shooting spree after only a few shots had been fired.

Slowburn on January 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Smaller number of bullets but of larger caliber and the Congresswoman would surely be dead. With practice, a magazine changeover takes no more than a second and this gunman was stopped when he couldn’t clear the overly long magazine from his pants. Such a limitation would have a lot less impact than people imagine.

michaelo on January 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM

The part that assumes limiting the size of a pistol magazine to under 33 rounds is an infringement of your 2nd amendment rights. Not every burden or restriction on gun ownership is a constitutional violation. If that were true, guns would be free and handed out on every street corner.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Again, you know nothing about firearms. Magazines are essential components of firearms. Once you restrict them, you are restricting firearms.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM

The sheriff screwed up royally. He knew she had received threats, and he knew Loughner had been obsessed with her.

darwin on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

If cops had been there, they would have had an EASY time spotting somebody trying to conceal a pistol loaded with a 33-round magazine.

Much more so than a 17 round standard mag.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM

A .223? .22-250? Or a .22 rimfire?
catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:35 PM

For pity’s sake… I don’t know of anyone who doubts the killing power of a .223 or .22-250. So what do you think we’re talking about?

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

So is a steak knife. Doesn’t mean it’s an effective choice of carry weapon for self-defense.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Maybe we should ban knives and any material that can hold an edge, like metal, plastic, stone…

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Crr6, evertime you post you make it more clear you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to firearms or self defense with them.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned how people defending their homes with handguns have 30 round magazines. You immediately come to the absurd conclusion that no one will need to fire 30 shots. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t a clue what it takes to survive a lethal force encounter.
If your home is invaded by multiple attackers you would want all the ammo you could bring to bear. If you are attacked by multiple thugs on the street the same thing applies.
You want to restrict the choices of the law abiding because of the mentally ill. That reflects very poorly upon you.

Hard Right on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Get long rifle hollow points and shoot a cantaloupe with it.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I don’t think cantaloupes break into people’s houses and threaten their lives…

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m really curious to hear your answer to this question, Madcon. After all, your whole argument is centered on the idea that this law would violate, or at least restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. It’d be helpful if you (and others) stopped saying things like this, too:

Typical shortsighted liberal with zero knowledge of firearms.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

You talk about assuming too much, but if anyone’s guilty of that it’s you (and darwin, and Kinley…).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

If the best you can do is erroneously impugn my firearms knowledge, try again. MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Your mother dresses you funny.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

guns would be free and handed out on every street corner.

oooh, that would be nice. Kind of like that Health Care Control Constitutional Right, eh?

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Again, you know nothing about firearms.

And you know nothing about the 2nd amendment, or Constitutional law in general. So we’ll call it even!

Magazines are essential components of firearms. Once you restrict them, you are restricting firearms.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM

But as I pointed out, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’re restricting the constitutional right to gun ownership.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Would you kindly read, and attempt to absorb, the knowledge being ladled out to you?

The information is there for the taking, if only you’ll drop the liberal mind-wall and let some of it in. Sheesh.

Come out to a gun range in the Midwest and watch how fast shooters out here can reload their 1911s or Glocks. A man with a cool head and focus can throw down three ten-round clips in ten seconds and not miss a beat.

If you think “NOW’S MY CHANCE” when you see the magazine drop, you’re already dead, because you just made yourself the next target. An admirable thing to do, but you won’t be stopping a dedicated and skilled shooter by bullcharging him in the one-second-window where he’s swapping mags.

Incidentally, I sometimes use clip and magazine interchangeably. c.c Also, I double-space my sentences.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

oooh, that would be nice. Kind of like that Health Care Constitutional Right, eh?

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:47 PM

There’s no such thing and people who say there is are morons.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

As a “lawyer”, you should know the answer to that. ANY reason I want that is not ILLEGALis a lawful reason.

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Yip! Pretty soon, our windows will be required to be made out of plastic wrap. Oh wait. Can’t have that. That’s not very green. Ok…we’ll have windows made out of…..ummm…errr….ummmmm. I’ve no idea.

capejasmine on January 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM

What drove this story? What made this such a vital issue all of a sudden? I mean besides the utterly contemptible and dishonest hacks/propagandists posing as “newsies” and analysts? The fact that a Congressperson was almost killed.

Oh, sure, a young child and a Federal judge were killed too (along with a bunch of other people barely recognized who also lost their lives or were injured), but it was the attack on a Legislator that made it spectacularly important.

Guess what? That took one shot. From what I think is known, it was the first. There is no way one could have stopped Loughner from his assassination attempt even if he had a mythical one-shooter. Would appropriating all guns have been a reasonable solution to prevent premeditated murder with a firearm? I mean besides to those who would readily violate the Constitution? Obviously not and for countless reasons.

To say that clip size mattered in this whole brouhaha is to be a fool. That limitation would not have prevented the assassination attempt. The issue would not have been “important” were it not for the fact that a Legislator was a victim. The crisis was manufactured because a protected institution that has moved further Left sought to malign a grassroots voting bloc that has gained traction and power – and is a direct threat to that Left that would gladly repeal individual freedoms as long as it isn’t theirs.

Killers will kill. Politicians will politic. The press will propagandize. Those will always be. However, it is infinitely more dangerous to restrict the freedoms of the hundreds of millions of generally law-abiding citizens for “the sake of the children” or for the sake of other citizens called Legislators just because a narrative can be presented.

AnonymousDrivel on January 19, 2011 at 1:49 PM

And you know nothing about the 2nd amendment, or Constitutional law in general. So we’ll call it even!

QUOTH THE CRR

This… is a riot. XD Oh, wow.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m really curious to hear your answer to this question, Madcon.

Once again, the liberal mindset: Justify your rights to me, or I will take them away.

Here’s a good reason: there’s an intruder in your home and you missed the first 32 times. Here’s another: there’s multiple intruders in your home and you’d freeze up if you had to reload. Here’s another: you like shooting 33 consecutive rounds at the gun range. Here’s another: because 34-round magazines haven’t been invented yet.

Meanwhile, you cannot demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that a person determined to go on a shooting spree will be deterred or hindered by the outlawing of 33-round magazines, since he isn’t going to be obeying the law, and the law will not make 33-round magazines disappear.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

How’s about we ask it this way:

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 20 consecutive shots with your pistol?

Then.

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 10 consecutive shots with your pistol?

Then

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 5 consecutive shots with your pistol?

Then we get down to the Barney Fife method of Disarming the law abiding (Gun control)

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Maybe we should ban knives and any material that can hold an edge, like metal, plastic, stone…

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

mad saint jack on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless ammunition magazines contain more than 30 rounds.”

What part of that quote is wrong?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM
How is the right to bear arms infringed by limiting the availability of such magazines?

changer1701 on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I’m really curious to hear your answer to this question, Madcon. After all, your whole argument is centered on the idea that this law would violate, or at least restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. It’d be helpful if you (and others) stopped saying things like this, too:

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

See my post at the top.

In the Miami FBI shootout, it took 6 shots to take down Matix and 12 rounds to kill Platt. Police accuracy is ~20% nationwide. You do the math.

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Well, maybe if he’s had to stop to reload sooner, he would have been tackled sooner. Fewer people would be shot.

Grow Fins on January 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Well of course! I mean the last thing a psychotic mass murderer wants to do is to buy “illegal” magazines!

redzap on January 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I doubt the killing power of a .223 very much. But that’s another discussion.

This is one of the problems. When people talk firearms, they often speak in generalities – either from their own limited personal experience, from what they see on TV or in movies, or their complete lack of experience on the subject which leads to the spouting of talking points.

When and if one is going to talk firearms, specifics matter – not generalities.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Stupid remark from the usually sharp Cheney.

1) Magazine is the correct terminology. A clip is something entirely different.

2) The only noticeable effect of the prior law banning manufacture of hi-cap mags (over ten rounds) was to inflate the cost of the hi-cap mags already on the market. As in skyrocket the cost. An outright ban on hi-cap mags would be impossible to enforce. There are already millions of them in circulation, and they are easily manufactured. All a ban would do would be to create a black market in h-cap mags.

Personally, I prefer the old Colt 1911 with an 8-round single-stack (one row) magazine. The grip fits my hand better than the wide-grips on pistols designed for hi-cap double-stack mags, and the narrower profile pistol is much easier to carry concealed. But that’s just me, and I don’t live in a high threat environment, and no longer do work that requires me to enter them.

3) The best size handgun for self-defense depends on your abilities and your circumstances. If you can’t handle the recoil of a bigger cartridge, use a smaller one.

Better to hit a threat 1 time with a .22 than to miss 3 times with a .357.

Likewise, if you can’t practice regularly, a revolver is probably a better fit than a semi-auto because it is simpler to use.

novaculus on January 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

You talk about assuming too much, but if anyone’s guilty of that it’s you (and darwin, and Kinley…).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

I’m sorry that you’re upset that your ignorance of the matter is exposed, but you asked, and, in so doing, showed your ignorance.

I can’t help it if you don’t know what you’re talking about, lady, sheesh.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

But as I pointed out, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’re restricting the constitutional right to gun ownership.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Are you intentionally being dense? Magazines are to firearms as tires are to cars: restricting one is restricting the other. Jesus Christ, LEARN SOMETHING about firearms before you start talking about them again.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

So is a steak knife. Doesn’t mean it’s an effective choice of carry weapon for self-defense.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

At close range, it may be prefered to be hit with a high caliber, high velocity round that will go clean through. All of the tumbling and misdirection increases the area affected thus increasing the likelyhood of hitting vital organs.

I understand this to be an argument that does stand to reason, if true, of course. Admittedly, my knowledge of such is lacking so take it as a possibility and not a claim.

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I don’t think cantaloupes break into people’s houses and threaten their lives… darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:45 PM

You don’t say… but if one wants an approximation of how effectively a .22 will scramble human brains, that’s one.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

It’s called Incrementalism.

Ever time there is one of these incidents; the Oppressive-Left uses it to push for more restrictions on someone’s right to self-defense.

The restrictions don’t do anything, and it happens again. And the Oppressive-Left does it again – they know it won’t fix the problem and we know it won’t fix the problem.

They know they can’t take away that right in one fell swoop, but they can try to do it bit-by-bit.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

I think this is why many liberals oppose virtually any restrictions on abortion rights. How do you feel about that?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

It’s nice when the gun-grabbing progs and the neoconservatives (but I repeat myself) have a meeting of the minds!

Gun control, perpetual nation-building wars, banksta bailouts, government controlled corporatist medical systems, borrowing, spending and printing…

Go team!

Rae on January 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

You talk about assuming too much, but if anyone’s guilty of that it’s you (and darwin, and Kinley…).

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

None of the above were assumptions. You have demonstrated zero knowledge of firearms. You have demonstrated that you are liberal. You have demonstrated that you are shortsighted.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Cheney is hardly someone who should mouth off about gun control.

Wade on January 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

oooh, that would be nice. Kind of like that Health Care Constitutional Right, eh?

JamesLee on January 19, 2011 at 1:47 PM

There’s no such thing and people who say there is are morons.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

HILLARY: HEALTH CARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

But as I pointed out, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’re restricting the constitutional right to gun ownership.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Actually it does. and it is not merely gun ownership, but weapons in general.

Slowburn on January 19, 2011 at 1:53 PM

How many Congressmen get whacked every year with a gun? Almost zero over the last 20 years, yet we need to have knee jerk submission of new laws? That’s crazy. Why act crazy like our shooter?

The shooter is nuts, was on the streets when police knew he was nuts. Fixing that should be the first order of business.

By the way, don’t obsess over semi-auto pistols. A revolver can do almost the same damage with a few speed loaders in use. A trained shooter can reload any revolver in 3 seconds, maybe less with speed’os.

richardb on January 19, 2011 at 1:54 PM

This is all shoulda-woulda-coulda based on limited guesswork and not a small amount of complete ignorance of how quick and dirty combat works.

phelps on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I suspect an on duty LE officer with a baton at the ready could have stopped the original shot to the congresswoman quicker than he could have drawn and fired his weapon. Of course that theory goes out the window if the shooter is further away, but lots of stray rounds flying through the crowd, well intentioned or not, make me cringe. Each situation is different and Monday morning quarterbacking is usually 100%.

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Cheney at his heart is a Ruling Class Progressive Conservative.

And notice our beloved leaders have to help/nudge us into making the right choices…….or in this case, eliminate the choice. Cheney admits (as does the article) that it wasn’t the deciding factor but he can’t resist himself to advocate more Gov’t involvement and rules.

Next up limiting food choices because we’re not smart enough to make the right healthy decisions for ourselves.

PappyD61 on January 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Meanwhile, you cannot demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that a person determined to go on a shooting spree will be deterred or hindered by the outlawing of 33-round magazines, since he isn’t going to be obeying the law, and the law will not make 33-round magazines disappear.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

What would have stopped this Leftist Lunatic from taking two or three guns to shoot the place up?

What would have stopped this Leftist Lunatic from ramming an SUV into the crowd?

As they someone else said: Don’t assume criminals will obey the law.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I doubt the killing power of a .223 very much. But that’s another discussion.
…..
When and if one is going to talk firearms, specifics matter – not generalities.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

???

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Here Read This.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

mad saint jack on January 19, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:55 PM

There are few things I loathe more in politics than those who know nothing about firearms and even less about the effect of laws on firearms attempting to legislate both based on their ignorance.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Don’t think Nanny State is laying the groundwork to do more than just regulate the size of the clips/magazines you can get?

Can’t decide who they are advocating is the bigger devil in this story below……..Walmart/Big Retail or the Serfs that shop there.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Packing+pounds+blamed+weight+Walmart/4131466/story.html

PappyD61 on January 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I think this is why many liberals oppose virtually any restrictions on abortion rights. How do you feel about that?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

crr6, you have never spoken truer words as far as I know. So why are YOU trying to limit magazine capacity?

BierManVA on January 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

There’s no such thing and people who say there is are morons.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

It seems there is at minimum one person in the US House.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/18/sheila-jackson-lee-repealing-obamacare-is-unconstitutional/

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I think this is why many liberals oppose virtually any restrictions on abortion rights. How do you feel about that?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Guess if I were a black person living in New York City, I would look at the demographics on the number of abortions and wonder what we were doing to ourselves.

a capella on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

The question of effectiveness or not it irrelevant.

The question is, do you support the constitution or not. If you do then a high capacity ban is unconstitutional. Period.

If you think they should be banned, then the proper and ONLY method of doing so it is pass a constitutional amendment to reflect that.

This is the problem we have, We allow the constitution to be mis-interpreted because what ever law or policy is supported by most people, that methodogy has giving birth to the massive federal government we have today.

The only solution to that is to support the constitution 100%, even if the constitution says something, or prevents something you think should or should not be done. THAT IS WHAT AMENDMENTS ARE FOR.

the_ancient on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Here’s a good reason: there’s an intruder in your home and you missed the first 32 times. Here’s another: there’s multiple intruders in your home and you’d freeze up if you had to reload. Here’s another: you like shooting 33 consecutive rounds at the gun range. Here’s another: because 34-round magazines haven’t been invented yet.

…yeah. Well I think we both know that was pretty weak. I actually lol’d at the first and second examples.

Meanwhile, you cannot demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that a person determined to go on a shooting spree will be deterred or hindered by the outlawing of 33-round magazines, since he isn’t going to be obeying the law, and the law will not make 33-round magazines disappear.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I don’t think I (or most thinking-people) would buy the argument that restricting lawful access to a good has absolutely no effect on the ability of people to obtain that good because they’d find a way if they really wanted it. It’s similar to the argument that restricting the ease with which people can commit suicide, has no effect on the suicide rate.

That argument has been debunked.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/18/sheila-jackson-lee-repealing-obamacare-is-unconstitutional/

anuts on January 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Let me go on the record as saying that Sheila Jackson Lee is a moron.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

What if he had two loaded guns, should we limit the amount of guns people legally own?…..

the_nile on January 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

It’s called Incrementalism.

They know they can’t take away that right in one fell swoop, but they can try to do it bit-by-bit.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

I think this is why many liberals oppose virtually any restrictions on abortion rights. How do you feel about that?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Nice try at attempting to sway the argument on to better ground, but that’s SOP for you Leftists when losing.

The discussion here is the destruction of our right to self defense.

Chip on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM

There are few things I loathe more in politics than those who know nothing about firearms and even less about the effect of laws on firearms attempting to legislate both based on their ignorance.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:56 PM

How about people who know nothing about the 2nd amendment or Constitutional law blathering on about their constitutional rights being violated? Because I think that’s pretty annoying.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Let me go on the record as saying that Sheila Jackson Lee is a moron.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM

What about Hillary? (see above)

darclon on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

That’s actually not true. A cantaloupe or any other melon does not equate the actual terminal ballistics on human flesh.

Ballistic gel is better, though not as good as pork/pig. As far as the human skull goes, the target needs to equate the density and thickness of the skull with tissue. A melon rind is not nearly as dense as the human cranium.

Shooting melons is cool and all, but not an accurate approximation.

catmman on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM

But as I pointed out, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’re restricting the constitutional right to gun ownership.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Are you intentionally being dense? Magazines are to firearms as tires are to cars: restricting one is restricting the other.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Jesus Christ. I’m saying just because you’re restricting firearms doesn’t mean you’re restricting the right to own firearms. Understand? Probably not, but I don’t really care at this point.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM

…yeah. Well I think we both know that was pretty weak. I actually lol’d at the first and second examples.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Of course you did, because the concept of defending yourself is something you’re too sheltered to ever actually think about. Enjoy waiting on your phone for five minutes while you beg the police to arrive sooner as the burglar/rapist comes down the hallway. Hope you don’t end up like these girls.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4