The limits of Second Amendment rights

posted at 4:13 pm on January 20, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

As predictable as clockwork, the recent shooting in Arizona has once again brought forth an eclectic coalition of opportunists who want us to know – in the most reverent and mournful tones possible – that perhaps the aftermath of this atrocity is the ideal time for a calm, reasonable, national discussion on gun control. Except we’re not supposed to say gun “control” this time. That sounds a bit too gun-grabby and pushy to the modern conservative mind. No, these days we’re supposed to say, “gun restrictions.”

Who could be upset over a few sensible, proactive “restrictions,” eh?

The chosen first line of attack this year is coming in the form of limiting the capacity of the clips for semiautomatic handguns. And it’s being brought up by a diverse range of voices from Michael Isikoff to Dick Cheney. (For the record, I know that many of you object to the use of “clip” in this context, preferring the more technically accurate “magazine,” but clip has fewer letters in it, so bear with me if it slips in here and there.)

The argument goes something like this:

Look ,nobody is trying to take your guns away. We’re on board with you there, brother! The Supreme Court has ruled that you have an individual right to own a gun. But all rights have limits, you know? I mean, you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. And besides, nobody really needs a clip that holds thirty rounds unless they’re hunting humans, do they? We can limit the body count in cases like this by simply reducing the capacity of the magazines. That’s not so unreasonable, is it?

Unfortunately somebody has to be the bad guy here, so I’ll field the question. Yes. Yes, it is completely unreasonable. And furthermore, this is precisely the wrong time to be having this discussion. You’re only doing it now because politicians tend to get a bit gun shy (if you’ll pardon the phrase) at times like this and fidget around, not wanting to look too gun happy. But since you took the time to ask, I’ll sit down with you here and try to explain why that is.

There are two related but equally dangerous problems with this argument. The first is whether or not there is a “need” for people to have a high capacity magazine which holds 30 or more rounds. (And this is one argument which even Ed Morrissey seemed willing to give some ground on in the article linked above.) I’ll grant you that the number of scenarios where it might be useful is limited indeed. You’ll never get that many shots at any game animal you’re hunting and a Glock is really a fairly useless weapon for hunting to begin with. And you’re never going to be in that much of a rush to get off such a large number of rounds in conventional target shooting competition.

But I can think of one – hopefully very rare – situation where it might come in handy. That would be in a home defense situation where you’re facing multiple armed assailants. Granted, with a lot of practice you can switch out a clip on a handgun in a few seconds, but not everyone has that skill. (I’ve actually experimented with this in the past, and under ideal conditions I can do it in about four.) The point here, though, is that it isn’t totally inconceivable that somebody might run into a use for it.

But that is actually a far less important consideration than the second point of the argument. The real question here is whether or not the need to be able to fire that many rounds constitutes sufficient grounds, and if the government could or should mandate such a limitation on that basis.

There is no end to the list of things Americans may not need to do. You don’t really need to be able to dance in a public park. Let’s face it, there are plenty of other ways to express happiness. And as far as physical training goes, you could always just do calisthenics. Further, as some nanny state enthusiasts might reason, the possibility exists that while dancing in a public park, you might fall down and hurt yourself. Even worse, your clumsy frolicking could lead you to fall down and hurt someone else. But does that lack of need and potential self-injury provide grounds for the federal government to prohibit dancing in national parks? Where in the Constitution are we to find that power granted to them?

The point being, a lack of need for someone to perform a given activity does not automatically make a constitutionally sound argument in favor of government regulation. And if we were to give ground on this admittedly rational sounding argument – that the vast majority of Americans would never need a 30 round clip – then you have just established a very dangerous precedent.

What if the next argument comes in the form of the Gentleman from Vermont saying that 30 was too low of a bar, and perhaps 20 was more in line with our “needs?” It’s only a short hop from there to saying that only single shot weapons are required with each round needing to be manually expelled and replaced directly into the chamber.

Hey, we’re not taking away your guns. That’s your right! We just don’t want you firing more than one shot at a time.”

I normally don’t care much for slippery slope arguments, but this is one where I’ll gladly jump on board. Giving the federal government the right to limit the capacity of magazines to any number of rounds concedes their right to limit the capacity to any number of rounds, including one. Or, perhaps, zero.

All of this brings us back round to the question of when it is proper to limit some of our constitutional rights. But you need to remember that there is a vast difference between using free speech to openly express your views and shouting “Fire” in the hypothetical theater. The latter is not an expression of opinion, but rather a deliberate attempt to cause mayhem and injury to other citizens. And while possessing a high capacity magazine might make it easier for a deranged psychopath to cause injury, simply possessing it is not a crime. The fact that you posses a tongue renders you capable of yelling Fire in the theater. Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?

Look, you’re not reading this from some die hard, 2nd amendment absolutist. I have long held that there are constitutionally viable limits on the types of weapons the average, law-abiding citizen should be able to own without violating the vision of the founders. I feel there is a difference between guns – or “arms” – and military weapons of war. I don’t feel that every citizen is entitled to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. (And believe me, I’ve actually had some NRA members argue with me over that one.)

But our right to keep and bear arms is beyond question. Giving ground on something like magazine capacity – particularly during a stressful time as this, when defenses against governmental restriction are low – is a fool’s errand. The Arizona shooter was a madman, and we must always support law enforcement’s efforts to protect us from the violent and deranged. But not at the cost of our personal freedom.

Now you can yell at Jazz for being a stupid, wrong-headed RINO even faster than by leaving a comment. Follow him on Twitter! @JazzShaw

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

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

Not Mine:

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

LawDog

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

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

I demand matching decreases in fire extinguisher capacities.

rogerb on January 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I’ve used several 30 round mags, guns were 9mm. You were lucky to get off 9-12 shots before a FTF. Longer mags always have a greater failure rate when compared to stock mags. Weapon malfunction Seems more like a disadvantage than an advantage. This leftist nut in Tuscon got ‘lucky’ in that his weapon didn’t fail.

We need fewer gun laws, not more.

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Good read AP

The Notorious G.O.P on January 20, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I”m not throwing any bricks here. I’m in complete agreement with you.

Being female, I’m supposed to be against such awful things as guns. I was — about forty years ago. Now I’m a life member of the NRA and unhappy with them because they got wobbly a while ago on gun rights.

The government doesn’t have any business deciding whether we need a constitutional right. That’s why the Founders made them “rights”. The point is that the government can’t be trusted. No government can, no matter how benevolent.

hachiban on January 20, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I actually agree wholeheartedly with Jazz Shaw on this issue. This feels weird.

pugwriter on January 20, 2011 at 4:21 PM

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

One problem with that comparison: it leaves out the 1986 Machine Gun Ban which, in my opinion, is the worst thing Ronald Reagan ever touched during his presidency.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:21 PM

And while possessing a high capacity magazine might make it easier for a deranged psychopath to cause injury, simply possessing it is not a crime. The fact that you posses a tongue renders you capable of yelling Fire in the theater. Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?

As I said in the GR comments, admirably put.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Well, things like this only work when the right follows along like puppy dogs and uses the left’s terminology. Just keep calling it gun control because that’s what it is.

JellyToast on January 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Good read.

fourdeucer on January 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I don’t feel that every citizen is entitled to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile.

Screw that, I want my own tank and some of those turret things from Aliens 2. Don’t worry, I’ll put up “Beware of Owner” signs. :)

Pattosensei on January 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Let me be the first to say “A magazine is not a clip!” :-D

SirGawain on January 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM

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

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

.
Excellent quote. I’ll be using that in the future.

LincolntheHun on January 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM

it leaves out the 1986 Machine Gun Ban
MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Good Catch.

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I feel there is a difference between guns – or “arms” – and military weapons of war. I don’t feel that every citizen is entitled to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile.

Read this and it will help you out:

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

SirGawain on January 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Yeah . . . I’ve always been amazed at the way in which the word “need” is used, as if the fact that you could get along without “it” (whatever “it” might be) justifies outlawing “it.”

“Need” becomes a moral absolute: since you don’t “need” to eat fast food, or shoot guns, or drive cars, perhaps you shouldn’t and perhaps there should be a law against such things . . ..

To those who use such arguments, I say: you don’t “need” to engage in political activities, enjoy music, read books, type on your keyboard, accept medical help or even eat . . . providing you’re willing to live with the consequences.

BLOC on January 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I don’t feel that every citizen is entitled to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. (And believe me, I’ve actually had some NRA members argue with me over that one.)

Here’s the quandary: since such devices and other military equipment are almost always financially impractical, as well as difficult to obtain on the market, is it really worth restricting such devices at the expense of the intentions of 2A?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Let me be the first to say “A magazine is not a clip!” :-D

SirGawain on January 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM

This is a 30 round clip of ammunition

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:26 PM

What’s fun is dropping by a board that has foreign commentators on it. One I got to was at CZ USA on the Vz.61 Skorpion. While the guys from the US went on about the restrictions on gun ownership in Europe, one Czech gun owner pointed out that they are much better about FA weapons there than the US. Not only for manufacture but for sale. While there was some overhead, it was nothing like in the US.

When asked how this could be his answer was very simple, and I will paraphrase from memory:

‘We were taken over first by the Nazis and then by the Communists. We never want that to happen again.’

The Czechs are a very civil people in my book, for knowing that simple equation.

ajacksonian on January 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM

It’s the eternal dance.

The people who deem themselves ‘rulers’ have never been happy with the ‘little people’ possessing sharp pointy objects.

It tends to make whips and chains somewhat ineffective.

CPT. Charles on January 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Let me be the first to say “A magazine is not a clip!” :-D

SirGawain on January 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Beware the backlash. You’re either going to get dips claiming you just learned that and are being a jerk, or you’re going to get dips claiming it doesn’t matter and that you are a snob, or you’re going to get dips claiming that magazines function as clips and therefore you’re unenlightened, or you’re going to get dips who didn’t know that and claim that you’re an elitist.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:30 PM

And while possessing a high capacity magazine might make it easier for a deranged psychopath to cause injury, simply possessing it is not a crime. The fact that you posses a tongue renders you capable of yelling Fire in the theater. Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?

No, A tongue has both lawful and potentially unlawful uses. Removing the tongue completely would be overinclusive, it would eliminate a great deal of constitutionally protected speech just to avoid a small subset of unprotected speech.

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!), and limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms (like Loughners) without eliminating any constitutionally protected, lawful use of firearms.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

I’m pro-choice where high capacity magazines are concerned. I think people who are against them should not buy them.

Laura Curtis on January 20, 2011 at 4:33 PM

The modern gun-control movement has “racist roots,” where, after the civil war, state and local governments passed gun control laws to impede freedmen’s (and also anti-slavery whites) constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

It was, in part, 1860′s gun-control laws that led to the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A free society must prohibit from it’s government the power to disarm it’s populace.

PoliTech on January 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)

Self defense against a home invasion, as Jazz pointed out, and because it makes for a damn good time at the range.

Laura Curtis on January 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Well said. Government shouldn’t legislate up to the edge of what is necessary. Government should stay out of as much as possible.

On gun rights, I use a simple argument. If I own a thing, have I infringed on anyone’s rights? Of course not. Now, if I kill or wound someone with that thing, have I infringed on their rights? Of course.

So what we need is law to deal with the killing or wounding of another citizen. Do we have that? Absolutely. So why is more regulation required?

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)…

We did, and you laughed. Condescension on your part does not equal a lack of validity on our part.

1. Home defense.
2. Sport.
3. Any other lawful purpose that a magazine could be used for.

…and limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms…

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

What the hell is “unprotected use of firearms”, and how does magazine size affect it, and how would whatever argument you make not make a similar argument limiting magazines to 10 rounds, 7 round, 5 rounds, or less?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I don’t care who you are, what the heck you do and what your damn opinion is. If you want to argue about how many freaking bullets of whatever caliper, I have in a clip… talk to me when you have a freaking grizzly running at you top speed and you not unload everything you have.

And just because I have a CCL, doesn’t mean I have it on me at all times with a big freaking clip.

No matter if the clip is big, little or there is just one round in a chamber… it all amounts to personal responsibility. And those who have no personal responsibility, are mentally unable or inept cause a problem, why should the whole mass have to suffer for the individual who obviously have no common sense?

Does this sound familiar?

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Translation: All of you people that have them are all criminals!

El_Terrible on January 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

did you forget about taking over your oppressive government? that’s a good reason to own an assault rifle with a 30 round clip…

Kaptain Amerika on January 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Hum….Need???

you don’t need 2 kidneys

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

The point being, a lack of need for someone to perform a given activity does not automatically make a constitutionally sound argument in favor of government regulation.

Nutshell.

Vashta.Nerada on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

1. Home defense.
2. Sport.
3. Any other lawful purpose that a magazine could be used for.

All of those uses could be accomplished with 20 round mags.

What the hell is “unprotected use of firearms”,

Shooting and killing people.

and how does magazine size affect it,

You can shoot and kill more people without reloading.

and how would whatever argument you make not make a similar argument limiting magazines to 10 rounds, 7 round, 5 rounds, or less?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM

At some point a Court or legislature would draw a line. That’s what they do.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I am not a dip and I still call it a clip. Bite me. :)

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Need???…Hum

YOU DON’T NEED 2 KIDNEYS

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

talk to me when you have a freaking grizzly running at you top speed and you not unload everything you have.

I forgot about grizzlies. Another lawful use. Good point.

El_Terrible on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!),

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Self-defense, target practice, that lawful enough?

You could use that argument with just about anything.

Baseball bats have lawful and unlawful uses, do we restrict them?

Chip on January 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

did you forget about taking over your oppressive government? that’s a good reason to own an assault rifle with a 30 round clip…

and a principle reason for gun rights… not for hunting.

Kaptain Amerika on January 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

All of those uses could be accomplished with 20 round mags.

But its even better with 33 :)

El_Terrible on January 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)
crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

The best use for a 30 round pistol mag is in a “nightstand” gun. If some one kicks in your door at O-dark- thirty you can grab your pistol with flashlight and 30 rounds on board and be ready to deal with multiple threats. You may not have time to grab extra mags or even clothing.

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

and a principle reason for gun rights… not for hunting.

Kaptain Amerika on January 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

You have obviously never seen hunting shows in alaska.

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

The GOP being in control of the House, no 2nd Amendment restrictions, nevah gonna happen. Well prolly not anyway.

Akzed on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

WTF is an ‘assault’ rifle?

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms (like Loughners) without eliminating any constitutionally protected, lawful use of firearms.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

You are assigning a supposition that can not be proven. Even a 50 round magazine has no more potential than the will of the one who yields it.

fourdeucer on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Guess my 5 round revolver is gonna leave me hold’n my pud with 6 attackers!

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

did you forget about taking over Protecting yourself from an oppressive government? that’s a good reason to own an assault rifle with a 30 round clip…

Kaptain Amerika on January 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

FIFY

Chip on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)

Paperweight.

Gift.

Chewing gum case.

Curio in a curio cabinet.

Display. (many people have lethal medieval or civil war weapons on display, should those be illegal?)

What are the potential lawful uses of an urn? It just sits there, and sometimes contains stuff. A magazine does exactly the same thing. And an urn could contain a LOT more than 30 bullets.

You could argue that a high-capacity magazine allows you to kill more people. Using that guide, then animal skulls need to be outlawed, as Samson killed scores of men with one.

Or bolt-action rifles, since snipers have killed dozens of men in a session with them.

Or longbows, since thousands of French knights fell to them, largely due to their high rate of fire.

Or cars, since they’re wide enough to hit several people at once.

Or fertilizer, since it’s the ammunition for a mass killing device.

Or sets of steak knives containing more than 4 knives. After all, each of those knives is a potentially deadly weapon.

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Define lawful use.

darwin on January 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

I agree with Jazz.

Liberals use incremental-ism, the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent.

Social Security and Medicare did not start out as massive government entitlement behemoths that the debt incurred thereof threatens our way of life. But now they do.

No more gun restrictions.

(Liberals also rebrand their ideas often to confuse the public. Why do you think so many insist on calling themselves “progressives” instead of liberals now?)

scotash on January 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

WTF is an ‘assault’ rifle?

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

A black rifle. Pink ones are ok though.

El_Terrible on January 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms (like Loughners) without eliminating any constitutionally protected, lawful use of firearms.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

He could carry 2 guns, or he could reload, as the Virginia Tech shooter did. Further, one could argue that high-cap clips change the balance of a gun, rendering it less accurate and thus, less lethal. So maybe we should outlaw standard-size clips, since they make shooting more deadly.

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

WTF is an ‘assault’ rifle?

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Six barrel 7.62 full auto with automatic 60 round banana clips.

darwin on January 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

A. Target shooting.

B. None of your business.

C. None of Uncle Sam’s business.

Akzed on January 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM

A single round may not bring down an assailant. You have two options. One is to fire multiple rounds. The other is to use a larger-caliber round, with more propellant behind it, and therefore more kick to the gun operator.

As a 6’6″, 300#+ Monster, I can probably handle firing about any caliber gun a single human would be expected to use. But a 4’10, 95# woman? Not so much. She doesn’t have the option to use bigger bullets.

This proposed law is objectively sexist.

The Monster on January 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!), and limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms (like Loughners) without eliminating any constitutionally protected, lawful use of firearms.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

The problem isn’t 30 round magazines. It’s the crazy person holding the gun. And what the hell does ‘lawful use’ mean? It’s legal to buy 30 round magazines, so it’s already ‘lawful’. ‘Lawful use’ is gibberish, First Year.

What you are really saying, in the end, is ban all guns. You’re just trying to do it one step at a time.

Either that or you’re claiming it’s acceptable to only shoot 15 rounds without reloading in another human being’s face. Or that it’s perfectly fine to carry two guns with 15 round magazines and just use them at the same time.

Asher on January 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

WTF is an ‘assault’ rifle?

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

A black rifle. Pink ones are ok though.

El_Terrible on January 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Oh Noes! An EBR!

(I prefer the term: Sport Utility Rifle)

Chip on January 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Another thought on this… what if the assailant decides just to use TWO guns instead of one high capacity gun?

This clip limitation argument is not well thought out by liberals.

scotash on January 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

All of those uses could be accomplished with 20 round mags.

They could also be accomplished with 10 round magazines. Or 7 round. Or 5 round. So what? You don’t get to revoke freedoms because we don’t provide a sufficient “need” for them. You don’t “need” a fast car or a high-powered computer except for rare situations. Are you proposing to eliminate them as well? They are involved, respectively, in computer crimes and accidents resulting in deaths.

Shooting and killing people.

So taking away 30-round magazines will “eliminate” “shooting and killing people”? Considering that in decades of shootings, this is the first high-profile shooting involving these magazines, which have been around for decades, how the hell do you figure?

And what if those people being shot and killed are attackers, intruders, or other people committing a crime, and the person shooting is a citizen defending themselves? Are you against that?

You can shoot and kill more people without reloading.

If you’re a law-abiding citizen doing so in the process of defending yourself, so what? If you’re a criminal currently breaking multiple laws, how is your magazine ban going to affect them?

At some point a Court or legislature would draw a line. That’s what they do.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

And where is that line drawn? Your argument is recyclable and reusable every time someone carries out a shooting spree. What about when someone does so with a 15-round magazine? 13? 10? Can you, with your logic, argue that limiting firearms to single-shot magazines would not impact criminal ability to kill?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Shooting and killing people.

That should read: Murdering people. Obviously killing someone in self-defense is lawful.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Oh – I forgot one lawful use. Shooting 30 criminals. Say I’m driving through California, and stop for gas in a tiny town. I walk into the store to pay, and stop by the restaurant next door, because I’m hungry. Surprisingly, the local biker gang is having their annual meeting, and they resent my intrusion. A few testy words are exchanged, and they decide to make an example of me.

Would a 30-round clip be useful and lawful in this case?

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Oh man, leaves bows out of this.

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Another thought on this… what if the assailant decides just to use TWO guns instead of one high capacity gun?

scotash on January 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Limit people to one gun. See? Simple … with small capacity mags of course!

darwin on January 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Every time some criminal, murderer, robber or blogger makes headlines… here comes the assault on some particular freedom!
If it isn’t freedom of speech that gets attacked today, it’s our freedom to buy and sell. Or our freedom to own property. Or our freedom to travel or our freedom to own guns. Funny, no matter how many crazies from government make the headlines, big government is never to blame.
But when a crazy in our society does something wrong, all of America must be changed. It’s like the libs are yelling “See.. your constitution doesn’t work! See! Your freedoms are dangerous! Liberty is to blame!”

Yeah, but let some Senator gets caught not paying taxes even though he’s the chairmen of the committee that writes tax laws.. could big government be to blame? Is it getting too powerful and dangerous, Heck.. no way!
TSA agents get caught stealing property, making threats or abusing their authority? Is big government to blame? Absolutely not.
Some abortion doctor gets caught murdering babies and killing a woman.. is the abortion industry to blame? Is government to blame for looking the other way? No way… could never happen.

JellyToast on January 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Oh I get it now, these are assault rifles!

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Oh – I forgot one lawful use. Shooting 30 criminals.

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Let’s try and have an adult discussion, mmk?

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Didn’t Loonie Larry O’donnell tell us that “policeman miss their target the “overwhelming majority of the time”. If cops are missing that often why should plane ole joe citizens be expected to be a crack shot. Hell I might need all 30 of those shots to hold off one guy.

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Nobody needs ipads or blackberries. They just make it easier to text. Texting kills. So ipads and blackberries should be outlawed.

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

And by the way…my best friend has owned one of these 33-round Glock magazines for years and somehow never shot anyone with it, nor used it in any unlawful fashion. Care to explain that?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

crr6- Isn’t any use “lawful” up to the point where it’s not? So isn’t there, per your argument, already a law covering it?

rogerb on January 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Oh man, leaves bows out of this.

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

How about repeating crossbows with laser sights?

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

That should read: Murdering people. Obviously killing someone in self-defense is lawful.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Then killing someone in self-defense with a 33-round magazine is lawful. The same goes for a rifle or submachine gun with a 30+ round magazine. Every day in America, over 99% of these high-capacity magazines owned by citizens kill no one. Almost every day, 100% of them kill no one.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Let’s try and have an adult discussion, mmk?

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Great. Who are you going to get to handle it from your side?

Aviator on January 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Six barrel 7.62 full auto with automatic 60 round banana clips.

darwin on January 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Then that’s illegal. But maybe I’d be ok with it if it used a 25-rd clip ;-)

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

I feel there is a difference between guns – or “arms” – and military weapons of war. I don’t feel that every citizen is entitled to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. (And believe me, I’ve actually had some NRA members argue with me over that one.)

I overlooked this, somehow. I want as much as I can afford. I knew I couldn’t possibly be in full agreement with Jazz. I feel much better now.

pugwriter on January 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

And by the way…my best friend has owned one of these 33-round Glock magazines for years and somehow never shot anyone with it

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

That he/she told you about. Chances are there’s an unsolved murder somewhere and the victim has 33 bullet wounds. These “clips” … they do strange things to people.

darwin on January 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

How about repeating crossbows freaking sharks with freaking laser sightsbeams on their freaking heads?

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

ftfy… that would be teh awesome!

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

http://zombietargets.net/

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Every day in America, over 99% of these high-capacity magazines owned by citizens kill no one. Almost every day, 100% of them kill no one.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Actually, a high-capacity magazine has never killed anyone. The jails aren’t full of high-capacity magazines. Nobody ever gives a clip a last meal.

And I would highly doubt if you could kill somebody with a clip if you wanted to. Certainly not by throwing it. And they’re not very useful as blunt force instrument. I’ll have to practice, though ;-)

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

All of those uses could be accomplished with 20 round mags.

What the hell is “unprotected use of firearms”,

Shooting and killing people.

and how does magazine size affect it,

You can shoot and kill more people without reloading.

crr6 on January 20, 201

1. Shooting and killing people is not “unprotected”: It’s prevented (in theory) by something called a”First Degree Murder Charge”. Funny how the same criminals that ignore gun bans also ignore that fact…
2. So you’re in favour of a 20 round capacity on magazines, something that would allow the gun (it’s never the man/woman using the gun, of course), to kill 20 people, which is an acceptable amount, using your line of reasoning.
3. 20+ Round mags DO have a sporting purpose: It’s called Open Class in USPSA, and it’s provided half the contestants for this season of Top Shot on History Channel.

ExUrbanKevin on January 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Yep… lets not forget how much fun it is to run out of ammo when someone is try’n to kill ya.

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

The term “High capacity magazines” could mean 200 rounds or 5 rounds, it’s all in eye of a wondrous and benevolent government and their disarm the law-aiding minions.

Just like the term “Assault Weapon” which can mean pretty much anything they want.

One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment Is to protect the people from an Oppressive government – so wouldn’t you think that the government getting involved with restricting these arms would be sort of a conflict of interest?

Chip on January 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Let’s try and have an adult discussion, mmk?

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

What part of his statement was other than adult? Before you answer, stop acting like an arrogant child.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Let’s try and have an adult discussion, mmk?

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Refer to this for a more elaborate answer.

Then killing someone in self-defense with a 33-round magazine is lawful. The same goes for a rifle or submachine gun with a 30+ round magazine. Every day in America, over 99% of these high-capacity magazines owned by citizens kill no one. Almost every day, 100% of them kill no one.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:51 PM

El_Terrible on January 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Actually, a high-capacity magazine has never killed anyone. The jails aren’t full of high-capacity magazines. Nobody ever gives a clip a last meal.

And I would highly doubt if you could kill somebody with a clip if you wanted to. Certainly not by throwing it. And they’re not very useful as blunt force instrument. I’ll have to practice, though ;-)

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

You ever held one of those 33-round Glock magazines when it’s full? That thing is one hell of a club. It’ll cave a head in, easy.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!), and limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms (like Loughners) without eliminating any constitutionally protected, lawful use of firearms.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

.
.
Ever been faced with a large (70lb+) pit-bull, on a public sidewalk, held back only because his owner had a good grip on his leash? (I have) Hint: ask Diane Whipple of San Francisco, California about Presa Canarios, and how her incident ended.
.
How about 2, maybe 3 of them (pack mentality), and an owner with insufficient control. Maybe one or more get loose.
.
Maybe 3 or 4 guys decide to enter your house very early one morning (say 2:30AM). Maybe they have dogs.
.
6 rounds is not enough. 30 or 31 rounds is probably not enough (but I find such a magazine to be unwieldy).

Arbalest on January 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Sometimes there is more than one perp.
That said lots of rounds can and will provide overwhelming firepower. Mag capacity is smoke.Read about this woman.
Delayed 911 response raises concerns | tennessean.com | The Tennessean
– 1:56pm
Jan 20, 2011 … She had dialed 911 about 30 minutes before and still no one had … pointed to the 14-minute response from the time the officers were …
http://www.tennessean.com/article/…/Delayed-911-response-raises-concerns

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 20, 2011 at 4:59 PM

It is a slippery slope argument. WHO decides the “need”? One gentleman on another blog stated “I don’t understand the NEED to own a gun. Guns should be outlawed and confiscated.” He doesn’t “understand”, therefore HE decides you can’t. Well that sure as hell is “Democratic”. What else will HE decide that I need or don’t need?

As for these “30 round” magazines. Most often they jam, and because they unbalance the weapon, are more hindrance than anything else. But different strokes for different folks. People point and say that he was disarmed as he reloaded. Yes, because he did not know/practice how to “tactically reload”. Had he known, the first person to grab his arm would have been DEAD. And then he would have reloaded.

You’ll note the mantra “Restore the Assault Weapon Ban” is back. That damned AWB has become a religion. Repeated endlessly as if it would cure all the nations problems. No mention that “assault weapons and high capacity magazines” did not suddenly vaporized when the law was passed. They were “grandfathered” and still out there. No mention that crime has continued to go down, despite the AWB sunset in 2004. No mention that crime continues to go down – yet gun ownership has gone UP. No mention that liberal screamed that there “will be gunfights and blood in the streets if the AWB is not renewed” – it wasn’t and NOTHING HAPPENED. Same old crap. Different day.

It’s said that the 2nd Amendment is a ’3rd rail of politics’. I would submit that talking about the mentally ill could also qualify. EVERYONE knew Cho was crazy. He ‘self-reported’ – and therefore could still legally buy a gun. EVERYONE knew Loughner was crazy – the college sent their cops to give him a letter, saying he could not come back until he got a psychiatrist to certify he was ‘not a danger to himself or others’. ODD. That’s the same criteria the same cops could have used to take him in for a psych eval. But they didn’t. And NO ONE has talked about that.

GarandFan on January 20, 2011 at 4:59 PM

I feel there is a difference between guns – or “arms” – and military weapons of war. I don’t feel that every citizen is entitled to a shoulder-fired Stinger missile. (And believe me, I’ve actually had some NRA members argue with me over that one.)

Constitutionally there is a distinction. But fundamentally, the rights of man revolve around our responsibility to do no harm. You don’t take things away from man to force compliance, you expect them to be good neighbors, and punish them when they’re not.

The ultimate form of liberal utopia would be solitary confinement for everyone. You get fed, you have shelter, you get health care, and nobody gets hurt. I’d rather live an interesting, risky life of freedom.

hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:59 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!)
crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM

You do know this is lawful, right?

mad saint jack on January 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Nobody ever gives a clip a last meal.
hawksruleva on January 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

As a matter of fact the South Vietnamese would take the thin curved retaining piece of metal from our stripper clips bend them in half and use them to pluck their whiskers off their faces. Very irritating but they were quite efficient at it.

fourdeucer on January 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Availability to guns should be a basic human right.

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Guess liberals think all fights end like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFtHa4nj1SI

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 5:03 PM

In the words of Tim Wilson, “once those first two shots hit you, it really doesn’t matter if another 48 come after it”.
Guns don’t kill people, evil people kill people. How about a few controls on abortions?

flytier on January 20, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Keep talking laws, restrictions, bans, protections, EPA standards, noise abatement, public health issues….

every time you do my firearms appreciate quicker than lightning.

Limerick on January 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Of course it is. You have a high-level understanding of subject/verb agreement firearms, and you are excellent at correctly citing Supreme Court justices. You never make a fool of yourself. You are widely respected and admired. Again, no one is laughing at you, and you are completely in control of the situation.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM

whoops! Irony is the lowest form of humor.

Inanemergencydial on January 20, 2011 at 5:06 PM

In contrast, a 30-round mag doesn’t have much of a potential for lawful use (try naming some!), and limiting the mag to say, 15 or 20 rounds would help eliminate unprotected use of firearms (like Loughners) without eliminating any constitutionally protected, lawful use of firearms.

crr6 on January 20, 2011 at 4:32 PM
(try naming some!)Fits very nicely in a 1927 Auto Ordinance piece,less bulky than a drum and will back of the surliest bunch with nary a round being fired.
All you do when confronted as we have been is ask,¿Quién quiere morir primero?
I will pick what I need with no help from Lawyers!

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 20, 2011 at 5:07 PM

every time you do my firearms appreciate quicker than lightning.

Limerick on January 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM

don’t forget the ammo!

upinak on January 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Somehow liberals can find “constitutional rights” that don’t exist in the Constitution, but they can’t seem to find the ones that the Constitution expressly provides. What part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear?

DaveCal on January 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Yep I can’t think of any circumstances where ya might need more than one shot

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gang+attack&aq=f

roflmao

donabernathy on January 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4