Posted on 03/25/2011 5:33:10 AM PDT by marktwain
I don't really care if you have a gun for hunting or a pistol to give you some sense of protection at home. It's your right.
But what's the point of ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of bullets at a clip? I stopped by a legislative hearing Wednesday at which a roomful of gun enthusiasts was irate about a bill that would make it a felony to own a "large-capacity magazine" that uses more than 10 bullets.
The shooter in the Tucson attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this year that killed six and wounded 13 used a legally purchased semiautomatic Glock pistol with an ammunition clip holding more than 30 bullets. Large-capacity magazines like this, illegal from 1994 to 2004, were used in the mass shootings in East Hartford, at Virginia Tech and in Fort Hood, Texas, to name a few.
Cops such as Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett see "no reason whatsover" for anyone to have these ammo clips. "The large-capacity magazines put not only the general public at risk, but especially the men and women of Connecticut's police departments," Gaudett told the General Assembly's judiciary committee in testimony Wednesday.
Banning these magazines isn't going to magically stop deranged killers. But it's an important start and it certainly might help police -- and prevent the next Jared Loughner from going into Walmart to buy a 33-bullet ammunition clip.
As I listened to opponents and read through their testimony, I realized how little I know about the violent wild-west-of-a-world some of these folks inhabit, a place that doesn't reflect the reality of Connecticut.
"Anyone who knows anything about firearm self-defense knows that you want as many bullets loaded as you can carry in a practical manner,'' Robert Crook, director of the Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance, said in his testimony. "He who throws the most lead wins."
A doctor from Guilford, Daniel Vining, said in his testimony that criminals will ignore the law while law-abiding citizens "will be hindered."
"As a practicing ER physician, I have seen many shooting victims with as many as 6 separate bullet tracks who are not seriously injured. Consider then, trying to defend your family with a 10-round magazine against two home invaders ... five shots per attacker, even with 100 percent accuracy might not be enough."
Michael Fifer, CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a gun manufacturer in Southport, explained further. "In defensive situations, magazines in excess of 10 rounds provide ... private citizens the ability to deal with multiple offenders ... one-third of aggravated assault and robbery victims are attacked by multiple offenders."
We should not let these views distort a sensible response to these recent mass killings. Instead of throwing lead at marauding home invaders, I keep thinking more what Dallas Green, grandfather of shooting victim Christina Taylor Green, said not long after the Tucson attack.
"Even though I'm a hunter and I love to shoot and love to have my guns, I don't have a Glock or whatever it is and I don't have a magazine with 33 bullets in it. That doesn't make sense to be able to sell those kind of things,'' Green said. "I just don't understand that."
Neither do I.
There are alot of 33 round mag Glock owners and very very few of them go out and shoot people. However, mental people allowed on the street because it is too cruel to lock them up, have a very high potential for attacking and killing innocent people. That is the real issue with the AZ shooting. Furthermore, frequently kids are put on drugs for behavioral issues. Many of them end up attacking people or killing themselves. Going after a gun and its magazine capacity is not the solution, but dealing with dangerous mentally ill people and how doctors’ prescribe mind altering drugs to kids with behavioral problems is.
I must say I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a national push by the grabboids to ban “high capacity” magazines by now.
THEY SAY: Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30 round magazine for hunting deer. They’re only for killing people.
WE SAY: We compete in DCM High Power with an AR-15 or M1A. You need a large capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me…wa wa wa wa wa (a la adults in Peanuts cartoons). This is FLAWED as you have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban your firearms with no sporting use. Eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade game substitutes.
WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people and these devices obviously serve different purposes than firearms. To be precise, a high capacity military pattern rifle, shotgun or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself, my loved ones, my freedoms, my liberty and my Natural Rights, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom, liberty and Natural Rights is that they’re good practice for when they need to be protected from the overreaching tyranny of our government officials.”
-—John Ross
“Too much ammo” is like saying “too much liberty.”
What else is there to say?
Why stop at 10 rounds? The old J-Frames with 5 rounds has served us well for many years. But we could go farther and go back to single shot pistols..........
My personal preference would be a pocket pistol in 600 Nitro, with 50 rounds and no kick.
Makes the rest of the article irrelevant. It doesn't matter what your opinion is about what I do or don't need. It's none of your damn business.
A person’s needs is not something for the government to assess and dictate.
And why do they carry multiple mags, and practice changing mags as quickly as possible?
We might be surrounded by Obama forces and need the extra ammo!
IOW, we should be only allowed enough firepower to protect ourselves in a situation where everything fits the liberal template?
This is just Monday morning quarterbacking. How in the world can anyone predict in advance how a dangerous situation will play out? Total hubris.
Another point, which everyone is too chicken to say out loud. Our gun rights are to protect us from our government as well as criminals. What capacity mag do I need to defend my family and property from government thugs when they come? Can anyone spell Ruby Ridge?
Because the Second Amendment was never really about hunting or protecting your home from common criminals.
...it was actually about something much more important.
His cred drops to zero when he links the 2nd Amendment to hunting. Asking us civilians to do what police chiefs loftily ask us to do is also as arrogant and mindless as many of them are.
I too no longer hunt but I didn’t sell my guns. My only objection to hunting is that’s it’s gotten so #$&!! expensive! Love the ESPN hunting shows, though.
I always recall former (thank goodness) Sen. Bob Kerrey during the AWB debate holding up a Ruger Red label O/U and crooning “Beeeautiful gun!!!!” He then held up a semiautomatic AK and growled, “UUUgly gun!!!!”. adding that the AWB would have no effect on the freedom of owners of Beautiful Guns.
My Browning HP takes a 13 rd magazine, so I guess I’m one o’ dem `gun crazies’.
Another article where the left gets to set the premise that there is some ground where they get to start setting and tightening limits on our guaranteed freedoms. The bottom line is there is no argument. Your limit in personal armament is your pocket book and your ingenuity.
Lets try the argument that any government strong enough to give you security had to take it from someone else.
Trying to decide today between .40 with 13 rnd capacity, or a .45 that will only hold 10 +1. I’m thinking the .45 just because its a .45. Then hope for less than 11 zombies.
Actually, I think they are on to something here that can spread well beyond guns. For instance, I have three pair of shoes, two for daily use and one for dress. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone really needs more and it would save the live of countless cows if everyone were limited to three pairs of shoes. PETA would be pleased as well. Legislation couldn’t be that difficult. Think of all the money this would free up for necessary government programs.
And I am SO READY to read Castigo Cay! The teaser at Matthew's website is so good. I will buy several copies as soon as it comes out.
AND PLEASE: come out with a Kindle edition quickly!
When are these clowns going to finally recognize that if someone wants to do harm they will find a way...
Restricting anything to do with guns has NEVER changed crime. It only allows government to take more power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.