E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A leading gun-rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent "looney tunes" from committing more gun massacres.
Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court's decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.
"I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines," Levy said in an interview with NBC. "Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute."
The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill tomorrow that would ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy's comments as a sign that at least some gun-rights advocates might be open to the idea.
"For somebody like him to say this is significant," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Project, a leading gun control group. (Levy was one of the lead lawyers for gun rights in D.C. v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court case that overturned Washington D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendment encompassed an individual right to own firearms.)
There is little doubt that any gun-control proposal will face tough sledding in the Congress. A spokesman said today House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is against the idea. One leading gun-rights group, Gun Owners of America, posted a statement on its Web site this week denouncing "liberal politicians flocking like vultures" to gain political advantage from the Tucson tragedy by proposing new gun control measures.
But gun-control groups argue that measures like the one being proposed by McCarthy in the House (and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who is sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate) are so modest and reasonable that they could gain traction. Law-enforcement officials have noted that Loughner's high-capacity round magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage; he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine.
The manufacture of such magazines were prohibited under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, but that law lapsed in 2004 and gun experts say the sale of such magazines have since proliferated.
President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, had supported reinstating the assault weapons ban, but soon abandoned the idea as politically impractical after taking office. This week, the White House has declined to respond to requests for comment on whether the president would support a restriction on high-capacity magazines.
Although he is strongly opposed to most gun-control measures, Levy said in this case, "as a policy matter," restricting access to high-capacity magazines such as the 33-round ones used by Loughner makes sense.
"It may stop a few of these looney tunes," Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a "close call, he said that that a restriction of "10 to 15 rounds makes sense."
Leave a Comment:
However will I defend against rampaging packs of werewolves and laser-toting aliens? 8{
you people are all so wrong... first off, criminals get guns whether or not they are legal, since they BREAK THE LAW. second, in a defense situation, reloading can mean precious seconds. when you are a crazy assailant, who cares if you have to reload? people are scared and surprised. This is the opposite when you are being attacked, since you are the one scared and surprised. Some of the most high powered guns are in fact bolt action, meaning you essentially re load the chamber each time you shoot. This kind of gun killed JFK. I dont care if Lee Harvey Oswald had 30 rounds in a glock, theres no way he would have killed a president. Psychos are psychos, so I leave you with these two quotes, one from thomas jeferson, who was a very liberal man, but liberal in all ways, allowing people their freedoms and rights. - "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, will prey on those of us who without one, would surely perish." -anonymous
ALLEGEDLY, the gun used to kill JFK has never been proven to be the rifle found in the school book depository.
Lee Harvey Oswald ALEGEDLY shot JFK. The bullets ALEGEDLY pulled from JFK and the Caddie were unique to a Italian Mannlicher-Carcano which Oswald did in fact own and is in fact a low capacity bolt action rifle as the lead poster stated. Speculation surrounding the rifle that was actually found in the school book depository was a mauser.
CRAP! Allegedly you're full of sh!t. No bullet was removed from Kennedy. Both shots entered and exited his body. The "magic" bullet was found on a stretcher gurney at Parkland hospital. If there were any other bullets "pulled" from the Cadillac it would indicate a second shooter, and they can't be firing the same gun.
How many bullets does it take to kill a "crazy assailant"? 31? Or do you need 31 because you are a poor shot and you need that many in case you miss with the first 30? Sorry, I just don't see how it is necessary to be able to shoot 31 bullets in a matter of seconds.
Hello?
I am a gun rights advocate and a responsible gun owner. I own rifles, shotguns, and handguns. I know guns from both my experience in the military and from sport shooting and hunting.
The Glock holds ...I believe ...15 rounds with the standard magazine. For self defense purposes, if you can't hit an assailant with 15 shots...you really aren't much of a shot. I have seen .22 caliber semi automatic rifles with 100 round magazines. There is absolutely no need for that kind of magazine capacity. Not for hunting, not for target shooting, and not even for self defense. The people that buy this sort of equipment tend to give the shooting sports a bad name and a bad image.
I see some fail to use some common sense, no gun laws will completely stop criminals--but why make it easier for an intent murderer to kill possibly 31 people before reloading. This shooter was stopped when he paused to reload. Does it not make sense to limit the carnage capability during the initial attack? For those who plan to do harm, there is no other reason to have 31 bullets in one clip except to kill many and kill them quicker. Pay attention; use your heads. It isn't about 100% prevention, it is about at least making it harder to do so much harm so quickly. Why is that concept so difficult? Because YOU have been convinced by special interest lobby groups of gun and ammunition manufacturers that it is an infringement on your right to bear arms; you have been sold a bill of goods and keep buying more.
Large capacity gun magazines are very necessary since the bad guys sometimes run in groups. We'd better leave things just as they are. Long live the Second Amendment.
I am a gun owner, NRA member, and a 2d amendment advocate.
But, I also enjoy the freedom of being able to think on my own.
Let's say this fruit loop could not get a 30 round clip. Or even a gun, for that matter. Would that have stopped him?
No. His car could have killed just as many people. Maybe more if it were purpose built to commit murder. So, do we outlaw cars?
A back pack filled with pipe bombs would had done the trick. With information available on the internet. So, do we outlaw the 1st Amendment?
England has outlawed handguns as a knee jerk reaction to a massive shooting back in 1998, I believe. Since then, criminals has turned to knives and swords. A pointed blade knife is now illegal, and so are reproduction swords. but, the crime rate in England is one of the highest in industrialized countries, because the everyday Joe has been disarmed. But, not the criminals.
But, on the other hand, why do you need a 30 mag for Glock? I have a pistol similar to that, with a 17 round mag. We only load 5 round in it at a time for target shooting, and for home defense 10.
I can't think of a good reason for needing for a 30 round pistol mag. Unless you were zombie hunting.
The time for common sense has come. You need a license (and training) to drive a car, and that license can be revoked if you are not mentally capable of controlling a 3000 missile at speed. You need to have a hunter safety course (with training) to hunt. You should need a license (with training) to own a gun. Requiring handgun safety training is not a violation of the second amendment. Requiring someone to be mentally fit to own a firearm is not a violation of the 2d amendment, either.
Well as a gun owner I have rifles and semi auto pistols and do a lot of ammo reloading. I have had training and still cannot get ccw because of state politics, however crazy wife beating cops can get a lifetime ccw and another job as a cop. It has happened more than once. A Felony is a definite FOID killer.
Anyway, about limiting amount of ammo in gun mags, think of it this way you are letting the camels nose into the tent for even more gun control. I am not for or against mags or capacities, personally oversized mags I think tends to throw the balance of the weapon off a bit and makes for really poor targeting in stressful situations. We need a whole lot less gun control, and allowing bits and pieces of gun control legislation to filter into the fray will end up volunteering our gun rights away. As for the control nuts will certainly be glad to have one of us around if attacked and seconds count when the police are minutes away.
Wow, how naive to think that the capacity of a magazine matters when someone delusional wants to carry out an evil plan. Just for arguements sake, if Loughner had 10 round magazines instead of 30 he would have been able to reload in 1 to 2 seconds, WITHOUT fumbling it (which is the only reason someone was able to stop him). He killed 6 people so I guess a 10 round mag was more then enough anyway. Anyone who shoots handguns knows what I mean. Why don't people understand that banning and restricting has no impact whatsoever on any tradgedy. Isn't murder a crime, did that deter him? So what makes people think that assault weapons and high capacity mags being illegal will change anything except Loughner purchasing them illegally. It wouldn't prevent a damn thing. Think about it this way, what if everyone there was carrying their own firearm?? Maybe all 6 still die or maybe only 1....a lot harder to get off 30 aimed rounds when someone fires back. Why do we have to justify our rights just because one crazy jackass acts out. Anti gun activists have no arguement and never will, it doesn't matter what is said or what "new law" is put in place, the responsible law abiding citizen is the only one affected......NOT the criminals. PERIOD! I can't figure out why thats so hard to understand.
Stop the NRA lingo and stop calling it “gun control”.
Call it gun safety.
That seems an oxymoron of the highest order, in addition to being politically disingenuous.
It's all mind control, anyway. Ask Jared Loughner.
Shooting Ranges should rent out extended magazines for use at their range only.
Homeowners should be allowed to possess them while loaded, only on their own property.
Right, Paul, Homeowners REALLY need a thirty round magazine to bring down an intruder. Yep... soften up the situation with a thirty round spray all in every direction -- oops, sorry Fido, Grandma, and the neighbor across the street, but sometimes you just can't avoid collateral damage.
And lest we forget... deer hunters should be able to take them to the woods just in case the deer fight back -- you know--- trying to prevent Sarah from putting meat on the table for her starving family. And fishermen... you never know when you might bring up an extremely peeved catfish who needs the soothing effect of thirty rounds up and down his body. That will soften up that tough catfish meat, too, if you can find any of it when you are through.
Come on, guys, is there REALLY a legitimate civilian purpose for these things? Soldiers in combat, yes, and cops maybe, but I sure don't want my neighbor to cap off thirty rounds in five seconds in all directions for ANY reason, including the protection his property.
And these are examples of reasonable restrictions.
Why would you trust a cop with a high capacity magazine, but not an ordinary citizen?
Does the badge really make that much of a difference?
What for, Paul? For defending against packs of wolves? The first ten or so human intruders that you shoot ought to send the right message.
Problem is, of course, that the clip may not stay in the homeowner's hands, and some homeowners may violate the law and remove the clip from the premises, not intending to get caught in the commission of a crime. Imagine that.
And how about teachers? Shouldn't they have extended clips, too, in case of a school shooting? Or the post office? Or the local shopping mall? Once you get started, why restrict it to homeowners?
Sigh.
People who intend to commit a crime with a firearm are going to get their hands on one, regardless.
I am far more interested in examining the missteps that allowed Jared to get to the point where he thought to commit a violent act and what can be done in the future to identify people like him and get them help.
Hey Paul,
Shooting ranges don't need to rent them. Most ranges I am aware, good ones, won't allow rapid fire anyway. It is too dangerous for the many inexperienced shooters. There are classes you can take, even home defense, clearing rooms etc., that you can take and will allow them, but there are instructors that will kick you out in half second if they have a doubt about your safety/expertise. There are competitions with governing bodies such as the USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association)that have different classifications (limited 10; open: etc.) where they are used. You even think about touching a pistol/clip the wrong way and you are gone.
Yea, I guess. The argument is that if you get in a gun fight in your home, 7 rounds (+1 in the pipe) is kind of iffy (depending on the cartridge, bullet type, etc) especially if the guy is on crack and doesn't go down normally. 14-15 rounds is better. 30 rounders have feed problems (the last thing you want) and should be short loaded anyway by a couple of rounds. It's the home owners choice.
You mention specifically in home. You are implying that 30 rounders can be carried. No hand gun can not be carried without a CHL (Consealed Handgun Liscense). They are very awkward and pretty hard to conceal.
For the rest of you clueless ones, realize that Laugher hit less than half his shots (some were through and throughs too) with sitting ducks, some paralyzed with fear a point blank range. It doesn't always work like you see in the movies, especially with muzzle flashes blinding you and your...
If you need more than ten rounds than you are in serious trouble or quite possibly in a standoff with law inforcement. Either way you are screwed. I highly recommend that if the police come a knocking you put the ole pistoal down. Just sayin'.
There has been much talk about the way various media outlets and pundits have created a venue for wackos to aggitate themselfs to do the violence were recently saw in Az. Paul Krugman had an article out vilifying the right. Other members of the liberal media also joined in, and in most cases, everyone vilified the right......
We even saw the Sheriff walking the talk shows formulating personal opinion rather than commenting on the terrible situation that happened. As we see more information being discovered, a pattern of bad and serious behavior has been developed over this kid, with the knowledge of the sheriff, the school and the community.
The shooter was a wack-job, pure and simple. Was it easy for him to obtain a firearm - yes. The dealer as I understand it, did what was required of him for a purchase, and the government computer showed he had a clean record and could buy a weapon.
Do I agree that a 30 round magazine should be allowed for sale? Personally, I don't, but if someone wanted one, whether it was legal to purchase or not, one can be obtained. Can guns be control more strongly, perhaps. But can a firearm be purchased on the streets without any difficulty? Yes, easily and cheaply.
an interesting situation that can't be easily fixed.
Paul .... these are not good ideas ... keep trying dear.
Paul, What you can do; is easily make a fully operational 30rd high cap magazine from 3 low cap magazines. What you can't do; is stop a determined individual(crazy or otherwise) from carrying out whatever sinister agendas or plots they have concocted.
If you are serious about doing something to stop this type of thing then at least come up with a way to actually stop it. The reality of it is, no matter what you do you can never stop it. Simple as that!!!
Loughner couldn't reload properly. Do you think he, and the other mental incompetents, have the same skills as you and I? We can't eliminate the possibility that a nutjob might try this kind of thing, but we can find ways to make it more difficult for them to take down so many of us innocents. Let's face it, if Loughner had been limited to a gun with three bullets, he would have still hit Gabby in the head, and oddly enough, she would have probably been his sole focus and received two more shots. She'd be dead, he'd be in custody, and Judge Roll and Christina Green along with four others would still be alive. And few if any would be calling for changes to the gun safety laws.
Brutus - Rachel Maddow did an interview with a man on her show who had been an ATF agent for 22 years and now works for the New York Sheriff's Department, and she asked him if law enforcement uses extended capacity magazines. He said they are issued 12 round (+ 1 in the chamber) magazines. They don't use 30 round magazines.
Exodite Dragon,
Good point. When his college found him to be nuts, they expelled him. At that point, shouldn't someone have notified the "proper" authorities about his strange behavior? Maybe he could be put on a nationwide "no buy list" for firearms and ammunition. Kind of like a "no fly list" for air travel??
The signs are there...but nobody takes the responsibility to really watch someone like this. Remember the Fort Hood shootings. I believe there were plenty of tell-tale signs going on there too, but nobody did anything about it.
Not quite expelled (prohibited from re-enrollment) but yes - if a school counselor's office is concerned enough with the mental state of a student as to bar them from coursework until they've had an evaluation, it should be mandatory to contact the authorities and have a follow-up take place within a short time frame.
Another poster on FR, Joe, has been quite adamant in her arguments in favor of identifying and assisting those with psychological problems before they become a danger to themselves or others. While I understand and can agree, to some extent, with the debate concerning the extra-capacity magazines Jared Loughner obtained and used in his attack, I believe it is dangerous and dishonest to reduce the discussion solely to one of gun control while excluding prevention.
You're quite right about Fort Hood - and every other public shooting from the Va. Tech incident all the way back to Columbine. The common theme here is that there were warning signs in the behavior of the attackers that went unheeded by all close to them.
Mr. Levy, you just tried your last case for the NRA. They tolerate NO departure from script. You are now among those crazy wild-eyed liberals "flocking like vultures" to the idea that a ten round magazine is enough to do whatever job a Glock is supposed to do and that thirty rounds is --- dare I say it? --- overkill.
You have to ask yourself, if they're willing to venture so much in public, what they're really thinking privately. I think they're worried. Good. It's about time.
Thank you Robert A. Levy! Compromise is in the air.
I wouldn't get too excited! Once again they are proposing restrictions that will in no way shape or form prevent something like this from happening again. The only reason any of them do this is so people like you can't say they did nothing! Again, the reality is; there is no way possible to prevent this from happening again. None! Zipp!
Crazy people and Criminals really don't tend to follow the rules. The difference is, it is not the crazy peoples fault and the criminals just don't care. Wether I have a 200rd drum magazine or a 10rd restricted cap magazine.....either way "I" am not going to do something like this. This can be said for almost all responsible law abiding citizens that carry a firearm. You know; the people that it will effect, but yet have zero effect on preventing this type of thing from occuring again. Think about it!
I would like to see it harder to get that kind of ammunition than just going down to the corner Walmart.
"Gun Control" is the term used by advocates for more gun restrictions, not NRA lingo.
Anonymous: "Gun Control" is the term used by advocates for more gun restrictions, not NRA lingo.
You are correct but the NRA hijacked the term and defined it to be a bad thing – who wants to be controlled? So if you change the term for legislative purposes to be called “Gun Safety” the NRA would have a more difficult time stopping sensible changes.
I am not anti-gun. I just believe some restrictions make sense and would affect no honest gun owner/collector.
Gun Control is being able to hit what you are aiming at.
Bumper humor aside, "Gun Safety" is well gun safety, ie NEVER putting your finger in the trigger guard until you are ready to pull the trigger; NEVER pointing the muzzle at anything, anywhere, any direction that isn't safe; etc. Gun Safety is the most important aspect of owning a firearm, being around one , handling one....
NEVER CONFUSE "GUN SAFETY" WITH ANYTHING! Especially the wording for nebulous politically correct Gun Control legislation.
Bob,
Just like Auto Safety?
It can be used to mean both. It is important to learn auto safety as part of learning to drive.
It is also important to have auto safety laws that tell manufactures the rules for designing and building automobiles. It also provides restrictions on modification (after market) to automobiles for safety purposes.
So why can’t gun safety have a dual meaning?
I agree with Paul.
Oh wait, I know--
The 30 round clip is good for 'field sausage making' when the deer is shot and shot, and shot, and on and on. There it is, expedience!
I'll never eat venison sausage again.
It is interesting to hear Matthews and his anti gun advocates talk about outlawing targeting people and yet in the discourse they are placing the very targets on gun owners which they think is outrageous if you target a nongun owner. What kind of discourse is this? My opinion is the correct opinion but if you disagree, you are absolutely wrong and therefore targeted for rebuke.
Trying to place a "gag" order on the entire population of America and restricting free speech and discourse is about as irresponsible as the attitude that the US Constitution is merely a piece of paper to wipe ones exterior with. In order to exploit the sad state of affairs in Arizona to the fullest extent, the antigun radicals would strive for total disarmament of the 8th largest army in the world, the gun owners.
So, Matthews is spewing a vicious language he is saying should be illegal and the reality is you can't have it both ways bub.
Good intentions aside, the reality is- Gun control doesn't save anyone. Not in the way that limits ownership from the general population. Should people be required to take firearm safety courses and observe the lessons? Hell yes. Is a 30 rd magazine a little overkill for anyone not going to war? Probably, unless you plan on hunting a Mammoth. Wait... they're extinct. But the thing is here, overkill or not, a law against them will only allow the user of said items to be prosecuted... IF he survives, afterwards. It does not prevent the use of the item, except by law abiding citizens. And I don't know about anyone here, but last I checked, any jackwagon who goes into anywhere and shoots up a bunch of people is by no means law abiding. Control has its benefits and drawbacks. Unfortunately though, when it boils down to it. If you want it, there is always a way to get it. Gun control needs to be in education, because in the end, the best safety is the mind of the user. Personally, I think extended clips, while fun, are highly unnecessary in a self defense, or hunting situation. The Second Amendment was not so every idiot with a penchant for shooting can own a weapon, but for the common defense. It is quite possibly the second most abused amendment in the US Constitution, right next to the First. And lets be honest here NOWHERE does it say what kind of weapons the common American can own.
I'm sorry. Did I miss something. Do I see anything about people needing Assault rifles? High Capacity Magazines? Long range .50 cal rifles? No it says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say what kind of arms. There is a good reason for this. Back then there was very little difference between a hunting rifle and a military rifle. In fact, they were probably the same thing. Both were single shot, muzzle loaded weapons. As a matter of fact, most rifles were of that variety well into the 19th century. It was the 20th century that saw the most development in weapons technology. Frankly, unless you are going to war, there is no need for anything beyond a 10 rd sidearm, and a hunting rifle or five. If you cannot kill your target in less than ten rounds you are an idiot and do not deserve to own a weapon.
Considering that the Second Amendment doesn't give anyone any rights, it actually prohibits the Federal Government from INFRINGING on the right of the people. The government was never allowed the authority to have anything to say about it. They have exceeded their authority for many years and been able to get away with it because there have been too many people who were happy to shrug off their own responsibility and power hungry politicians who were happy to take advantage of them. Sheep are easily lead to the slaughter house by a Judas Goat and we have no shortage of people who are happy to make a good living playing the part of that goat.
Question:
Why does anyone need a 32 round magazine?
Answer #1:
We all hope to be able to negotiate this journey we are on without ever having to be in a gunfight. That said, we hope for the best but prepare for the worst. If you or your loved ones are involved in a violent, potentially lethal attack there is a strong possibility if could also involve more than one adversary. Unless you practice the art of precision shooting along with the complex act of tactical reloading (and do so with the frequency of a firearms instructor,) your chances are not great. One can make a very compelling argument that unless you practice precision shooting along with the complex act of tactical reloading with the frequency of a firearms instructor, you should own at least two super high capacity magazines.
Answer #2:
It is much more enjoyable to shoot than it is to reload. The truth is a 32 round magazine is a grand way to get even more enjoyment out of a very popular recreation pursuit. Let’s face it nobody really needs to go skiing. Nobody really needs to have a fast car, or speed boat, or a snowmobile that can do 80 mph. Both the end consumer as well as general public would enjoy a safer world if all commercially available cars, boats, motorcycles, atvs, and snowmobiles were mandated to come from the dealer with federally installed governors that restricted top speeds to 25 mph. No one really needs to go faster 25 mph.
Practice more often then, the "complex act of tactical reloading". If that is what limits our ability to defend ourselves, we should take pride in our skills in overcoming that obstacle.
Practice more often the "complex act of tactical reloading".
Reportedly the suspected shooter in Tucson was disarmed while he was practicing his own version of the tactical reload. Addmittedly just about anyone can accomplish a good reload at the range. Performing this act under threat is a different matter. Unless you are a professional you probably have a better chance if the gunfight is over before you need to reload. For this reason one can make a very compelling argument that unless you practice the act of tactical reloading with the frequency of a firearms instructor, you should own at least two super high capacity magazines.
He obviously hadn't practiced enough. ;(
Loughner was the aggressor, not the defender. He wasted 25 bullets on people who had little or no chance of stopping his escape. He never should have needed to reload.
A: it was a thirty round mag. not thirty two. B I and many others I know can fire 15 rounds and reload a second 15 round mag and fire fifiteen rounds in less than 8 seconds. how would your high cap mag law affect anything. Clue: it's not about the technolgy its about the mentality....
Loughner failed at his first reloading attempt. That's 15 fewer bullets fired.
flyingstar is right, I collect tactical weapons and I personally have been stopped and questioned by law enforcement at firing ranges due to the equipment I like to shoot, cops don't like it when the guy in the next booth over it shooting 1 inch groups of 5 with an Wilson Combat full size .45 with a 7" suppressor at 25 meters. But the 2nd Amendment protects us. Its a free country and if gun lovers are willing to pay for the permits they can shoot what ever they want. The size of the mag makes no difference, whether 15 or 30 rounds, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And the tactical reload thing is crap, that's just nerves, if your fumbling over your thumbs because your scared to death there's nothing to it.
flyingstar and john: Loughner is a different person than either of you. Competent people like yourselves will likely operate differently in pressure situations than someone who is already fumbling their way through an admittedly too easy life.
You appear to have fumbled your last sentence. Try it again. You need to "reload" it.
No offense, but that type of thinking is a stupidity of the liberals joke to the shooting/hunting community. Gun safety is no joke.
I realize you don't understand, that is not meant as a slight - you would have to be more educated in and involved in shooting. Again no offense, some just take it and gun safety especially, very seriously. These people are not the problem.
This does in deed make sense! It is a step in the right direction. I can't for the life of me understand why this could seriously be problem for gun rights activists. All is seems people want to scream is "They're coming to take away your GUNS"! Say NO to EVERYTHING! (Sound familiar?) Logic goes out the window it seems, gun sales have gone up in Arizona. Go figure.
I sympathize for the losses of the families in Tuscon, but changing gun laws will not stop criminals. A United States Citizen has the right via the 2nd Amendment to possess any firearm the military uses class 1, 2 and class 3 weapons. Now take into consideration that the permits for these weapons are thousands of dollars per year, and will quickly cost a gun owner more than the purchase of the actual firearm. If the American people decide to change the gun laws its just one step further in the wrong direction. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
You accept any number of infringements upon your right to bear arms. More regulation may trip up the mentally incompetent on their paths to criminality and murderous acts. The status quo isn't working. Now is the time.
John, can you guys possibly come up with a new and less stupid saying than " Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That is so over used and it is nonsense. The guy didn't strangle the little girl, she was shot with a gun!
Dianne,
To be specific...the gun didn't shoot the little girl...the madman holding and operating the gun shot the little girl. The gun is just a dumb machine. The operator of the machine is the criminal, the assailant, the perpatrator. Get it??
That's a lot like saying TRUMAN didn't kill hundreds of thousands in an instant, the Atomic weapons dropped by the bombardiers did.
Check out The Obama Diary. There is a video of President Obama landing in Arizona. Jan Brewer was at the airport to meet President & Mrs. Obama. Gov. Brewer looks quite pained at what has transpired in her state. She looks happy to see the president & first lady. But she herself looks like a woman in a great deal of pain.
She probably knows that 9/11 was an inside job. And that Dulles killed Kennedy.
So it's OK in the minds of some to pass a law that bans 30 round clips. Interesting.
What keeps that same law from being amended later to ban 10 round clips, then 5, then guns themselves, requiring you to store your guns at the local police station.
The problem is you can't trust the government to never incrementally adjust prior legislation.
Payroll Taxes started out as a plan where the deduction was 1% of the first $3,000 per year. Government added to the plan and to the tax and it is now 15.6% of the first $102,000 per year and the government has now spent it all and now claims the IOU's left in the trust fund in place of the payroll deductions are the same as cash. Al gore cast the deciding vote to make the deductions no longer deductable so you are taxed on the deductions as though the money was not deducted amounting to a very large tax increase. The government spent it as though it was regular income taxes and felt no fiduciary duty for the funds at all. And you think I will trust this same government to never incrementally change a law passed today that only limits 30 round clips? Sorry, but I can not do that.
Once the government gets its nose in the tent, anything goes. The best thing to do is keep the government away from this issue.
slippery-sloper. The second amendment is very clear. The vast majority of the populace and the politicians don't want to take away your guns or your ability to defend yourself. Nor do they want to even try to repeal the second amendment. Stop scaring yourself.
When people who have no factual basis nor background nor mental abilities to debate an idea intellectually, why do these same people feel the need to hang a label on someone and try to discredit the individual and not the idea? Why is that?
My name is not slippery-sloper, not tea bagger, not birther, and not any of the other labels your ilk wants to hang on people who present a sound argument for debate. You folks just want to shout down anyone that disagrees. Marxism 101. You have been well trained if nothing else.
However, you sir are either ignorant of history or naïve, or both. Your argument, as you so eloquently stated it, is that I am a slippery-sloper and therefore I am scaring myself needlessly because the Constitution is so clear about the Second amendment.
In reply, I would like to point out that it over two hundred years to get a Supreme Court ruling on this very subject and that ruling overturned a lot of existing legislation, especially in state and local governments.
Next, I will try to enlighten you a wee bit as to how your government regards the Constitution. I will give you two examples. There are many more, but these two examples should suffice for a reader of moderate intellectual abilities.
Example #1
When the Japanese bombed Pearle Harbor, our government reacted by rounding up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and putting them into concentration camps. It did not matter at all that these people were American citizens with the full protection of the law under the Constitution, and words in the Constitution to the contrary, these citizens were denied their basic rights, not gun rights, but even basic rights.
Example #2
When the economy tanked in 2007, our congress passed the TARP legislation and buried in section 8 of the TARP legislation these words - "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.” In essence, congress (the legislative branch) wrote legislation that was signed into law by the president (the executive branch), that shut out all review by the Judicial branch. This was done despite the fact that the Constitution clearly states in Article III - Section. 2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, …".
So your argument to me is that the words in the Second Amendment will protect my right to own a gun, and that my government will never try to circumvent that right, yet my government will round up fellow citizens because of their ancestry, and it will knowingly preclude the Judicial branch from reviewing any legislation and actions it desires, and has now created a legal precedent for doingf so.
I think you need to review your stance on this subject, because other than throwing a degrading label at me, you have done nothing constructively to debate the issue. With all due respect - good day to you sir.
slippery: If the government is willing to declare martial Law to come take your guns from you, your guns aren't going to do you any good. The biological agents employed to disarm the populace won't allow you to go get your gun, let alone squeeze off a shot. They don't want your guns in any scenario which you could imagine. If they do ever want your guns, the world, will be in a much worse place, and this country will be having much bigger problems than your self defense. Oh, and LIFE, LIBERTY, and the Pursuit of Happiness will be out the window too.
You are aware that in order to get TARP passed, the Bush/Cheney administration threatened Congress with their intention to declare martial law if the legislation was not passed.
Glenn,
Why would you want to stay in a country who's government is so untrustworthy? How much power should the government have with regards to gun ownership? What weapons should the be allowed? I've asked these questions for years and have never received an answer. I wonder why.
VWTERRTY - you asked me "Why would you want to stay in a country who's government is so untrustworthy?"
I hope you don't really mean what you are asking, but I will answer it anyway - even though this thread is closing out and most likely, no one will read it, but hopefully you will come back to your post and read my reply.
One has to separate the actions of people, ie government from country itself. I love my country, always, and I love my constitution, and the principal that we are a Republic, not a democracy. That is why long ago, I wrote a blank check to my country and thankfully, all that cost me was a total of nearly 13 years service in both active and reserve time.
Why do I stay here? Because I love my country, plain and simple. When people in elected office fail to live up to the standards set by our founding fathers and our founding documents, we should not leave, but instead, we should get more involved and try to elect better people to office. I do not think my country can do any wrong, only my government can do that, and government is simply the performance, good or bad, of elected individuals.
I doubt you will ever find something I have written that denounces my beloved country. I would never do that. And when government is bad, or acts in a manner that fails to live up to the standards of our country, that government should be held accountible and replaced. Therefore, it is my belief that sub par performance of government is a very poor reason to leave ones country, and is instead one of the best reasons to stay and try to make government better, at least in my mind it is. Does that answer your questions?
It is tragic that so many people lost their lives in this crime and that Congress woman Giffords was wounded. I pray for all of these victims. There is however no justification in this for more gun control laws or banning guns or magazines. There is justification in this for more guns in society. The answer to violence and vile political beliefs is more guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens. There is also justification in this for congressmen and senators to carry guns as well to protect themselves. This even includes those congress members who are certain to introduce more evil gun control legislation as well. To those who mention that the founding fathers could not imagine in their time the weapons of today, remember the second amendment was intended as an individual civil right designed to maintain a balance of power between the governed and the government. In this day and age where liberalism is becoming more powerful than ever, this is more important than ever. I'll be placing an order for some of these high capacity magazines myself from Cabelas. Not because I want to commit an act of violence, I don't do that. It is just a good idea to get your firearms and accessories before they get banned.
Does anyone really think criminals care what laws are passed regarding gun control? The entire criminal word rejoices every time that subject is even mention on the hill. Once again we regress. What makes sense is not the fact that one needs high capacity magazines, but the right to purchace said item if desired should not be infringed. If you have no desire to own a firearm, thats great for you. But, the basic understanding of firearm ownership comes with the use of said property. So let's leave what makes sense to those who legally can Grasp what is sensible and not. After all it's on thing to talk, it quite another to do..
So what do you suggest to address the gun related problems in this country? One side is saying that we must begin somewhere and the other is saying that anything is infringing on their rights. Is doing nothing going to improve the situation? Are those advocating doing nothing denying there is a problem? Why not start small, review the results and move on. No one in positions of responsibility is saying that all guns should be banned. That's just a fable repeated by some in power that they then use for political reasons.
"There is however no justification in this for more gun control laws or banning guns or magazines. There is justification in this for more guns in society. The answer to violence and vile political beliefs is more guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens."
That is one of the scariest statements I've ever read. More guns in the hands of more untrained, unprepared people with no real idea as to the long term effects of shooting another human being will not be better. More community involvement, better coordination between the police and the people they are trained to protect and better enforcement of existing laws will.
At what age do you recommend Santa bring the kiddies their first gun!
vwterry - So what do you suggest to address the gun related problems?
While in Newfoundland Canada a couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of talking to a Royal Canadian Police officer. He was concerned because his daughter was coming to America to visit Washington DC. He had seen the constant news reports of violence and murders emanating from America's capital city and he wanted my opinion of letting his daughter come here.
I advised him to tell his daughter to stay with a tour group, to not venture off on her own, to not go anywhere except in a group and even then to only visit the tourist sites. He appreciated that. I then asked him how many murders had occurred in Newfoundland in the most recent year.
He said it had been a bad year. Murders had doubled. They had budgeted for only one murder and they had two, which was very disturbing to him. I asked him how many homes had guns and he said he assumed they all did. Everyone had guns.
So you see, we do not have a gun problem here, we have a people problem here and you will not solve that by banning guns or passing more laws. You need to understand that because even if you were to remove all the guns (I know that is not the discussion, but go there for a moment), you would still have that same people problem. I guess knives, forks, and spoons could be banned, and baseball bats, and rocks, and clubs, and anything made of glass, oh, and power tools, and most mechanic's tools, and ...etc.
Why is it that when I was a kid, we all took guns to school in our cars and hunted, students and teachers, in the afternoon after school, especially during dove season. Now, if you took a gun to school in your car, even if it ws the same gun I used long ago, even then you would be in serious trouble. Did the gun change? Or did people change. You tell me which one changed, and I will tell you the one that needs to be addressed as the problem.
I think it all has to do with the male penis. My gun is bigger than your gun! That's all it ever comes down to when the guys want more, more, more and bigger, bigger, bigger.
I agree Cathy, the smaller the penis the bigger the gun they want.
Ladies,
The line forms to the left. Both of mine are big.
Freud would be so proud.
Caligula, prouder still.
Here in Florida a deputy sheriff had to shoot a deer 17 times. I have to wonder how in the world this deputy ever qualified on the shooting range.
I have heard ( they want to take my guns) for well over thirty years. I still don't know who (they) are. In all of those thirty years I know personally of only one person having his gun confiscatedand that was for hunting out of season and in a water shed. He broke the law and deserved this punishment. Surely we don't really need these high capacity bullet clips.
Just a suggestion. Maybe the answer to the question at hand isn't more legislation. And to those of you who are ignorant on firearms use, some of you are too stupid to talk to, and I'd rather not catch any of that kind of stupid from you. Criminals will ALWAYS be armed. That's not rumor, it's a fact. The question you should be raising is, Are you gonna be a Victim, or Armed citizen. Police can do nothing until the crime occurs, so deal with it. Restraining orders are not bullet proof, and do nothing to protect anyone from somebody intent on harming you. As far a I can tell we have an abundance of Victims already, and some do survive. But the odds aren't good.
Gabby could have armed herself, she still would have been shot in the head.
Much like Heath Schuler's simple thinking, for a guy who has been blindsided as many times as he has, you would think he would understand that you rarely see what's coming at you in time to do anything about it. He's essentially told his assassin how to approach him.
Maybe,Maybe not. But you do stand a better chance with a gun in a gunfight than without one.
An assassination, a sneak attack, is very rarely if ever a gunfight. If Loughner saw her going for her gun, he would likely have shot her first in the chest, and then in the head.
so basically nobody pays attention, and gun fight happen everyday, even on christmas. I myself wasn't raised to live in fear of people, but I do pay attention to surroundings. If, If ,If . Loughner is crazy no rational person knows what he saw or if he saw anything real. And calling him an assassin is like calling 50 cent a poet. Murderer yep, definitely.
He is a failed assassin, though he hit his stated target in the head. He did indeed "murder" five others, but of course he's "crazy" so he won't be executed for that.