Why Congress Should Ban High-Volume Ammo Clips

[jpak]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/02/14/why-congress-should-ban-high-volume-ammo-clips

Since Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004, we've seen tragedy after tragedy as deranged killers unleashed deadly firepower, murdering dozens of innocents.

At Fort Hood, Texas, on the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and at a workplace shooting in Manchester, Conn., the killers all had weapons with large-capacity magazines. And then came Tucson last month. A 9-year-old girl and a federal judge were among six people killed. Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among the 13 injured.

We as a society will always confront evil in the heart and sickness in the mind. Bad people will do bad things, but we can and must take steps to deny these criminals the weapons of mass destruction that have ripped apart families across the country. While the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that Americans have a right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense, the court has also upheld laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons or the mentally ill.

President Obama has called for "common sense" regulation. Regulating magazine size is surely common sense. Large-capacity magazines can turn a semiautomatic pistol into a weapon of mass destruction, with some spitting out six shots per second. These are not a hunter's weapons. They are meant to hurt or kill as many people as quickly as possible. Only law enforcement and the military should have access to this kind of firepower.

<more>

[X_Digger]

1. "weapons of mass destruction" -- lol

From the 2004 study on the effectiveness of the AWB..

The Ban’s Reauthorization or Expiration Could Affect Gunshot Victimizations, But Predictions are Tenuous

• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

[jpak]

2. "weapons of mass destruction"- yup

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. So Bush was right about Iraq, then? Lots of 30-round AK mags were found there.

Hey, I'm using your definition of WMD...

[jpak]

24. Bush is an asshole - large cap mags suck

yup

[cleanhippie]

109. More like posts of mass ignorance.

yup

[derby378]

113. Thank you for conceding

Anyone who claims that a mere gun magazine that holds 11 rounds is a "weapon of mass destruction" has surrendered the argument.

[damntexdem]

10. Is it also 19 slaughtered in Tucson, LOL?

Yeah, laugh at the killing and maiming made possible by these weapons of mass destruction. And laugh at the further decline of American society while you're at it.

[X_Digger]

14. I laugh at the knee-jerk legislative wharrgarble that is divorced from reality.

Anyone who actually looks at the literature surrounding the "assault weapon ban" can see that it did fuck-all.

Did crime involving "Assault Weapons" or "Large Capacity Magazines" drop during the ban? Not appreciably.

Did crime involving "Assault Weapons" or "Large Capacity Magazines" increase after the ban's expiration? Not appreciably.

Anytime someone uses irrational hyperbole to describe a magazine holding 11 rounds as a 'weapon of mass destruction', they can expect to be ridiculed-- no matter how many blood puddles they're stomping in.

[jpak]

25. "Divorce from reality" is to ignore mass murder in Tuscon wrought by high cap mags

ban 'em

yup

[Porterhouse]

28. Well I guess I learned something new today

A hi cap mag up and started to shoot people.
:rofl:

[X_Digger]

30. *stomp* *stomp* *stomp* -- woops, got some blood on your pantleg. n/t

[Callisto32]

34. It's awesome when a person with such a motto calls others authoritarians.

Awesome as in, an awesome display of stupid.

[DissedByBush]

120. To equate mass murder with high cap mags is a divorce from reality

In Columbine, the kid who had multiple ten-round mags fired a LOT more rounds than did the kid with the 50- and 30-round mags.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Are you another Bush apologist, then?

Or are they only "weapons of mass destruction" in the States?

Because there certainly were (and are) lots and lots of full-automatic AKs with 30-round magazines in Iraq...

[YllwFvr]

21. The magazines used in the shootings were legal

even during the assault weapons ban

[jpak]

59. No they weren't - they were limited to 10 rounds

Revisionist history fail

yup

[Porterhouse]

64. Yes they were legal

all that POS law did was ban the manufacture of new mags over 10 rounds except for LEO. All existing mags were 100% legal.
Before you post something you really should know what your talking about.

[jpak]

72. Yes - it was a bad law in that respect - it should have banned them

now is the time

yup

[Porterhouse]

75. I actually agree with you

that POS law was bad and deserved to sunset, which btw many many dems agreed to also.

[one-eyed fat man]

97. How do you get around the pesky Fifth amendment?

The fly in the ointment is the Constitutional guarantee.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That pretty much means that not only is there a due process requirement, there is a requirement the government pay market prices to those whose formerly legal magazines are confiscated by a government ban. Most ban proponents are all about the ban and ignore or dismiss the requirement or cost of compensation.

However, that is precisely why the last time around they went through the magazine ban they did not go after existing magazines. That avoided the whole takings, due process and compensation issue. They banned the production of NEW magazines except for "Law Enforcement or Government Use" and required they be so marked if manufactured after September 13, 1994. The marking requirement was absolutely necessary as there would be no way to tell otherwise when a particular magazine was made and therefore subject to the ban.



Magazines made before the ban were still legal. Magazines made before the ban could still be imported. Magazines made before the ban that held their normal cpacities sold at a premium.

One large police supply company when the ban first went into effect offered to trade 'even up' a brand new gun for the same make and model used to any police officer as long as the trade came with its unmarked pre-ban mags. The cop got a brand new gun with brand new magazines only he could possess. The dealer got magazines he could sell at a premium because they were pre-ban that would more than make up the the loss on selling the used gun.

[X_Digger]

66. Derp derp derp.

"The law prohibited newly-manufactured detachable magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds manufactured after enactment of the law from sale, transfer, or importation."

Derp derp derp, yup.

[cleanhippie]

110. You have no idea what you are talking about. The way you display your ignorance is awesome!

More power to you.

yup

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Are you saying mine were illegal?

You would, of course, be totally wrong.

You're welcome to inform the BATFE I bought some during the ban. They'll love having their time wasted.

[Euromutt]

98. You mean "six slaughtered," surely?

"Slaughtered" means killed; six people were killed in the Tucson shooting, not nineteen.

(And now I lean back and wait for the near-inevitable response along the lines of "oh, you think six people getting murdered isn't a problem, do you?" To which my response is invariably, "evidently it's not a big enough problem to you, or you wouldn't have felt the need to inflate the body count by over 200%.")

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Math isn't your strong suit, is it?

[sharesunited]

3. Don't wait on Congress. ATF and the Executive should do the necessary.

[Porterhouse]

4. BATFE and Executive can't make laws

only the Congress can
EPIC FAIL

[Katya Mullethov]

5. Someone actually killed a Fed with an "assault rifle " in December

And oddly there wasn't, and still isn't ,a lot of fuss being made about that one .

[X_Digger]

7. I see nutzingk, I hear nutzingk..

[Porterhouse]

6. 2nd Amendment

is not about hunting. When will you anti's learn about history? In the meantime, keep flailing around, it's entertaining as hell to watch the anti's make complete fools of themselves.

[guitar man]

8. wow

so Iraq did have WMD after all. :crazy:

[shadowrider]

12. I said that yesterday and the (sarcastic) response I got was

There are two definitions of WMD's. One for Iraq (nuclear, biological or chemical) and that no, none were found

One for here, anything that goes bang with more than 10 rounds in the magazine is a WMD.

Funny how that works.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. That I *have to read! Got a link?

[damntexdem]

9. And ban the assault weapons themselves.

But regulating magazine size is a good step.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. And then ban shoulder things that go up, amirite?

If you lot could actually come up with a non-ridiculous definition for an "assault weapon", you might not get so much well-

earned derision....

[Porterhouse]

15. So tell me

what is an assault weapon? My fist could be an assault weapon, a fart could be an assault weapon.
I believe they already tried that in 94 and it did't do jack shit and lost us control of the Congress, yeah, that's a brilliant strategy.:sarcasm:

[Glassunion]

26. I'll tell you a brilliant strategy... It worked in 94...

Stock up on the little naughty bits and pieces that they are looking to restrict. Once the law is enacted, it would be a huge cash-Cow.Man am I right?

[Porterhouse]

32. You are absolutely right

[oneshooter]

23. If they are banned, and surrendered, would you be willing

to pay higher taxes to pay for them?


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

106. Please, what is your definition of an "assault weapon"?

Inquiring minds, etc....

[Glassunion]

13. I found 19 loaded phrases and 1 huge omission in the article.

I win a cookie. Yay me!

I might take the mayor more seriously if he did not pepper bullshit phrases and lies by omission. This article is crap.

[YllwFvr]

The sad part

is that they really are trying to argue, but the argument they use is always lies and full of holes.
Didnt I see thats why Nuclear Unicorn stopped being anti?

[kudzu22]

18. Cops need to massacre?

They are meant to hurt or kill as many people as quickly as possible. Only law enforcement and the military should have access to this kind of firepower.

Right here is your problem. If the "high capacity" magazines are only for mass murder, then why do cops need them? Is it part of a police officers duty to massacre the bad guys?

[Euromutt]

99. Yeah, that's an argument I've never understood either

With one breath, the prohibitionists state that "large-capacity" magazines and so-called "assault weapons" serve no other purpose than to mow down large numbers of innocents, then with the next, they propose an exemption for law enforcement (which has no legitimate need of such items), thereby acknowledging that their claims about "serving no other purpose than to mow down large numbers of innocents" is bullshit. Well, that or they have some very scary ideas about what law enforcement should be equipped to be able to do...

[spin]

19. There are millions and millions of hi-cap and extended magazines ...

in the hands of gun owners right now.

What do you suggest we do with them?

[X_Digger]

22. psst.. 'standard' capacity. Don't let them frame it on their irrational terms. n/t

[spin]

36. Good point. (n/t)

[jpak]

29. One year of amnesty - turn 'em in

after that if you are caught with a banned magazine - mandatory 1 year in jail, confiscation of all your guns and a $25,000 fine.

That would fix it

*Law abiding* gun owners would comply.

yup

[spin]

35. So of course, you would let violent criminals out of prison ...

in order to make room for people who refused to turn in a magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds.

Yup

[jpak]

37. No - all *law abiding* gun owners would turn them in you see

because all gun owners are "law abiding".

More gun criminals - more jails

The fines could defray the cost of incarceration

yup

[spin]

42. In effect you would be creating criminals ...

and if the Democratic Party actually proposed and backed your idea, Obama would lose in 2012 and we would no longer control the Senate. We would effectively have shot ourselves in the foot just as we did when we passed the last Assault Weapons Ban.

Of course, you realize that your idea has ZERO chances of ever being passed.

[jpak]

49. No Obama would win - the majority of Americans support sensible gun laws that protect them

banning large cap mags is a winning Democratic party issue.

Victims of large mag massacres could make very effective campaign commercials for the ban.

Soccer Moms and level heded law abiding folks would overwhelm the asshole LaPeirre voters.

Yup

[spin]

74. A ban on hi-cap magazines has a small chance of passing ...

but not with the your draconian confiscation of magazines and one year in prison and $25000 fine for being caught with one if you failed to turn it in.

The best you could hope for is that if an individual owned a standard or hi-cap magazine prior to the law going into effect he would be allowed to keep it. (Which means that every shooter would run out and buy magazines before the law took effect.) The law might contain a clause that it would be illegal to sell such a "grandfathered" standard or high capacity magazine.

If this law passed, it would be as useless as an ashtray on a motorcycle. A black market would quickly appear for magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Banning stuff never works.

[GreenStormCloud]

83. In the 2010 election the NRA won big.

Over half of the House and half of the Senate have an NRA rating of "A". That means the voters installed people who completely AGREE with the NRA.

[jpak]

88. BT - Before Tuscon

yup

[Brilliantrocket]

111. Somebody died- BAN EVERYTHING

Someone got shot- DOWN WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. You realize there are post-Tuscon shooting polls that peg opposition to a ban

at about 76% right?

[Hangingon]

96. See results of poll attached to your article.

75% not in favor of banning hi-cap mags. Fail

Yup

[Riftaxe]

65. Making a High capacity magazine

can be done by anyone with low skills and minimal intelligence and tools in their garage fairly quickly, so such a ban will have no affect on a criminals capacity to acquire these items.

So we can pretty much dismiss any claims of yours that the purpose is to deprive these items from criminals, which pretty much leaves either a profit motivation or authoritarian one on your part, care to explain which one?

[oneshooter]

91. You mean that even he could make them? WOW!!! n/t

[DonP]

85. So everything Bush did in office was, by your definition, legal?

... even if it violated the constitution. Since you can make up the laws as you go along, as long as it's for ... the "Children".

Interesting POV for someone on DU to take after declaring that there were WMDs in Iraq in the form of 30 round magazines.

Uncompensated confiscation of legal private property, Hmmm? What a winning political strategy, right up until there are no Dems in either house or state offices for decades. I'm sure you'll volunteer to go door to door and help collect them too. That would be a nice gesture and good exercise for you too I bet.

Yeah, the political types are all going to jump right on that bandwagon ... rolling downhill towards the river, with no brakes and gathering speed.

[X_Digger]

86. Not to mention it would be a 'taking' under the 5th amendment-- and would require compensation. n/t

[right2bfree]

124. Bring the fines up to 40000 dollars and a lifetime felony. They'd be off the streets pronto. nt

[Callisto32]

38. Maybe "law abiding", but not "Law abiding."

Yup.

[jpak]

39. Break the law - go to jail

directly to jail

law breakers lose their guns

and pay a *BIG* fine to cover the cost of their incarceration

yup

[Callisto32]

53. Grammar, it's fundamental.

Mala lex nulla lex.

[rl6214]

76. and pay a *BIG* fine to cover the cost of their incarceration

And YOU are going to squeeze that $25,000 out of every gun owner, right? Will you please show me where I have all that money hiding since I could really use it now as I have been out of a job since Sept of last year.

[Porterhouse]

40. Quite the authoritarian aren't you?

[jpak]

44. Passing and enforcing gun laws is not authoritarian - law abiding mag owners have nothing to fear

It is no more authoritarian than laws against the possession and use of illegal drugs, laws mandating that drivers have car insurance or duck hunters can only hunt with 3 rounds in the gun.

obey the law - or go to court

yup

[Porterhouse]

51. Once again

quite the authoritarian aren't you.
BTW, zero chance of this passing and the SCOTUS would probably have something to say.
But, what the hell, keep having your authoritarian wet dreams.

[jpak]

55. Really was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act overturned by the SCOTUS?

Nope

Con -stee - too- shunal

yup

:rofl:

[Porterhouse]

62. And as Bill Clinton said himself

That piece of shit legislation caused the Repubs to gain control of Congress.

[jpak]

69. Nope - it was the fact that Bill Clinton was elected president in the first place

yup

and did Newtie overturn that bill?

Nope

Not Newtie or the GOP or the SCOTUS

Have a nice day!

:D

[Porterhouse]

71. So your saying that Bill Clinton is lying

in his book My Life?
You are really living in a fantasy world.

[rl6214]

77. Con -stee - too- shunal

Why do antis always make themselves look like idiots like this?

[X_Digger]

81. When they don't have any facts.. attack the opponent. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. "If they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear". Sounds familiar....

[RSillsbee]

43. Law abiding* gun owners would comply.

Or they'd vote every one that supported such stupid legislation out of office at the next election cycle and vote in people who would repeal the law.

You'd have a teabag majority in congress so fast your head would spin (Until it exploded while President Palin was being sworn in)

TYPO

[Porterhouse]

46. Jpak's head as Palin is sworn in

:nuke:

[jpak]

48. Your Palin fantasy is stupid and wrong - no one wants that gun idolater in the WH

nope

[Porterhouse]

52. Nope

It would come true if that dumbass measure were enacted into law.
A while back there was a poster here who wanted foreign armies to enter american soil and disarm the American people and he was under the impression that the Military would just sit by and allow it and that the people would comply with confiscation. Are you like this person?

[jpak]

57. When the GOP Congress allowed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

to lapse in 2004, Democrats regained the House in 2006.

NRA fantasy fail

yup

[benEzra]

112. Dems helped it expire, and pro-gun/anti-AWB Dems helped turn the Senate blue.

The 2006 election left Congress *more* pro-RKBA, not less.

The 1994 Adjustable Rifle Stock Ban and AR Sales Stimulus Act was a sad joke, and needed to go away.

[jpak]

58. Did Bill Clinton sign the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994?

yup

was he reelected?

yup

Palin fantasy fail

yup

yup

yup

[Porterhouse]

61. Yup

and Repukes gained control of Congress
Yup
Yup

[X_Digger]

67. Wanna hear it from his own mouth? (well fingers..)

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Derp derp derp. Yup.

[jpak]

70. But Clinton got reelected - Palin won't defeat Obama no matter what

mag ban or not

She's an asshole like Lil Wayne LaPierre and a gun extremist.

No one wants her in the WH

yup

[Porterhouse]

73. Your just all over the map aren't you?

everytime you get called out for false statements you deflect.
You are by far the best spokesman for the pro 2nd Amendment movement.

[X_Digger]

79. Perhaps you'd like to review the subthread you've been posting in?

"Or they'd vote every one that supported such stupid legislation out of office at the next election cycle and vote in people who would repeal the law.

You'd have a teabag majority in congress so fast your head would spin (Until it exploded while President Palin was being sworn in) "

We took a beating in the '96 election, in no small part due to the assault weapons ban.

[RSillsbee]

63. IDK if you are a "Bones" fan

but I was thinking more along the lines of the moment when the Gravedigger's head exploded

[jpak]

47. No, they wouldn't - gun extremists are in the minority and cannot wag the Dog of Liberty

nope

[kudzu22]

45. And the constitutional authority for that is....

Article Because, Section We Wanna?

[jpak]

50. 9th and 10th Amendments - individual freedom from gun tyranny

yup

[Porterhouse]

54. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

you just keep believing that. That's about as stupid as believing that YOU have the right to know whether I am CC.
Once again, every one has to have a fantasy and yours is a doozy.

[Union Scribe]

102. Lol! Now I'm convinced you're actually pro gun rights.

No one would seriously make the arguments you are.

[rl6214]

103. You sound like Barbara Boxer there

Is that you Barb?

[here_is_to_hope]

27. "on the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg..."

No.
Standard magazines.
FAIL

[Callisto32]

31. You really aren't very good at this.

[jpak]

33. LOL!

:rofl:

[Porterhouse]

41. Oh he is good at this

but only in his own w***ed mind.

[Callisto32]

56. I should follow my own rules.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Don%27t_feed_the_trolls

[Katya Mullethov]

68. Ever feed alka seltzers to a troll ?

They blow up . Seriously . Never say never .

[Callisto32]

78. I'd almost pay to see that....

almost.

[mediator]

82. Call me crazy but I have a really strong impression there's some serious chain pulling going on here

is it possible?

[Callisto32]

84. Indeed.

See post 56.

[mediator]

87. I guess I should appreciate the mental discipline it must take to maintain the facade...

:shrug:

:-)

[Callisto32]

107. Something like that.

[Atypical Liberal]

80. Question:

Only law enforcement and the military should have access to this kind of firepower.

Question:

If high capacity magazines are acceptable for police and soldiers to use to defend their lives, why are they not acceptable for civilians to use to defend their lives?

[jpak]

89. Because they are used for mass murder

yup

[rl6214]

92. I thought you said

they were to save lives (if used by police or military)?

Why not for non?

[jpak]

94. The Tuscon shooter was not law enforcement, the Ft. Hood shooter was not an MP

They killed lots of people very quickly with their asshole high cap magazines

yup

[PavePusher]

105. Wow. You didn't just move the goal-posts on that one...

you went to a completely different field. Good Job, no biscuit.

[cleanhippie]

114. Hard to move the goalposts when he is not even playing the same game.

His game doesnt use goalposts at all, it uses strawmen that get set on fire with inflammatory hyperbole.

[PavePusher]

116. Actually, I was thinking more of one of those games involving a bunch of tribal horsemen...

and a dead goat.

YMMV.

[cleanhippie]

117. Ahhh, yes.

[Atypical Liberal]

95. So what you are saying is...

So what you are saying is that because criminals misuse high capacity magazines, civilians can't avail themselves to the same tools that police and soldiers find essential to protecting their lives?

Why do you think its acceptable to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?

[krispos42]

119. So then our military shouldn't have them either?

n/t

[guitar man]

90. "High Voulme" ammo clips

Aha, now that you put it that way, I get the reasoning behind limiting "clips" to 10 rounds. They don't want "high volume" clips running around out there .

Anyway, this video explains it better ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGGwY6rPDmw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Hangingon]

93. Read the article and voted.

Looks like about 75% of poll voters think Hi cap mags are okay.

[RSillsbee]

100. I damn near spewed coffee all over my keyboard when I saw that poll NT

[lawodevolution]

101. 75% are against the ban

Yup

[benEzra]

104. The conflation of "high capacity magazines" with magazines over 10 rounds

is and has always been a bait-and-switch, like arguing "late term abortions are medically unnecessary" and then introducing a bill to ban all abortions after the tenth week. Civilian guns holding more than 10 rounds have been on the market since the early 1860's and have been widespread since the 1870's, and over-10-round pistols have been common since the 1930's and very popular since the 1970's.

Nor were they banned 1994-2004; contrary to media misconception, full-capacity and extended magazines could be freely imported, purchased, sold, possessed, and used during the Feinstein non-ban as long as they were manufactured and stockpiled prior to the effective date, hence the law ended up increasing rather than decreasing sales, by spurring demand. It did raise prices on civilian pistol magazines (a lot) due to panic buying and hedging, but rifle magazine prices weren't significantly affected, thankfully.

If the gun control lobby were talking about restricting extended magazines for pistols, or suggesting realistic capacity limits (19-20 for pistols and 30 for rifles would protect standard factory magazines for the most popular civilian guns), I might think they were at least attempting to be rational. But calling a Remington Model 1908, a Beretta 92, or a civilian AR-15 a "weapon of mass destruction" because it holds as many rounds as an 1861 Henry or an 1873 Evans is laughable. If a civilian centerfire .22 or 9mm is a "weapon of mass destruction" because it has a magazine capacity that's been considered mundane for 50 to 150 years, then the term "WMD" has been dumbed down into complete irrelevance.

As far as the hunting canard goes, I'm sure they know that (1) fewer than 1 in 5 gun owners hunts, and (2) hunting weapons trade very low capacity for very high per-shot lethality in the slimmest and lightest possible package, a tradeoff that most general-purpose civilian firearms do not make. Since the 1960's, the tradeoff has tended to go in the other direction, e.g. trading significantly reduced per-shot power for better capacity, and for the nonhunting majority that is an entirely rational choice.

Methinks the level of research that went into this piece, if typical, may explain this:

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/60401/u.s.-news-world-report-ceases-sending-to-subscribers/

[Remmah2]

108. Large capacity clips are dangerous.

[cleanhippie]

115. 81% against banning magazines. You lose, you fail, again.

and to quote you:

"don't like it? tough shit."

yup

[krispos42]

118. Overall homicide rates continue to decline

And in the wake of Columbine, increased security and intervention dropped school murders, not bans on new-manufacture magazines.

The is graph is for K-12 schools, by the way.

[Euromutt]

121. I wonder if Mayor Nutter's security detail consists of one guy with one ten-round mag

After all, if "the plain is that a magazine with 10 bullets <is> more than enough to guard one's castle," it should be more than enough to protect one guy, surely? But oddly, Nutter seems to have two guys on close security, plus two escort vehicles when he's traveling. I guess the mayor doesn't think "a magazine with ten bullets is more than enough" for his own protection.

Incidentally, the issue handgun for the Philadelphia police department is the Glock 17 (though officers are authorized to carry privately purchased Glocks in .40 S&W and .45 ACP).

[benEzra]

122. I hope a reporter asks him point-blank why he thinks it's appropriate

for his own police officers to be routinely equipped with "Weapons of Mass Destruction". :eyes:

[Jmaxfie1]

123. Tragedy = Time to curtail the People's Rights.

It always seems that after a tragedy "Progressives" can't wait to take away the People's 2nd Amendment and "Conservatives" can't wait to take away their 1st and 5th.

And I know that someone is going to say, "what about my right not to get murdered by an assault weapon". You have that right, last I checked murder is still illegal in all 50 states. Trying to take people's Second Amendment rights because some nut went on a shooting spree is no different than trying to take their first or second amendment rights because some nuts flew planes into the World Trade Center. Politicians and anti-Bill-of-Rights advocates will always try to use tragedy and emotion to further their agenda.