Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Calling all reasonable gun owners

Recently, I had a conversation about the Tucson shootings with a friend who owns guns. He had just returned home from a vacation in Tucson and happened to be there on the day of the shootings. He was appalled and shaken about the shootings and said that the whole city was in shock. He approached me at the post office to thank me for my work and my recent letter to the editor about the shootings. His comments were reflective of so many gun owners with whom I have contact.


While thinking about his comments, I read this article by Jon Meacham and then watched his commentary on PBS's "Need to Know" program. A brave man, Meacham, to dare to mention that he is a gun owner and a hunter and yet favors reasonable gun laws. The NRA thinks that these kind of people do not exist. Many of my readers think the same and challenge me to show support from gun owners and hunters for my cause. 


O.K. then. Let's get started. In my hometown newspaper on January 17, this letter, unsolicited by me or anyone I know, appeared on the editorial page. I thank this local hunter and gun owner for being willing to express that he thinks no hunter needs 30 round ammunition magazines. In fact, in his words:" What kind of madness has infected Americans who believe they are entitled to a 30-round magazine when there's a possibility of shooting humans while willingly limiting themselves to three rounds for shooting ducks?" 


I asked some friends who own guns to submit statements to me that I would use in my blog. Many said I could use their real names, but to protect them from the wrath of the gun guys on this blog, I have chosen not to do so. Here then,are their common sense statements: 


  • The first one to respond was my friend to whom I spoke in the post office. "I hunt, know many people who hunt and yet do not know people who use a hand gun, especially with a clip with multiple bullet options, as a hunting weapon. Those who say they do are not being entirely honest. The excuse that eliminating hand gun use with the multiple bullet clips would be the first step in removing use of the standard rifle or shotgun, is, in my opinion, not a valid argument. I think it is totally bogus. These handguns and automatic weapons availability have no place in our society by the average citizen. There is no good that can come from either. This conversation in a logical and civil manner needs to take place now."
  • This one is from my husband: "I'm a hunter and to me a fine shotgun or hunting rifle is a thing of beauty.  I have no trouble with the idea of registration of firearms or with the regulations being suggested as ways of reducing firearm injuries and deaths."
  • Then this from a collector and retired Sheriff's deputy: " Law abiding gun owners have no need for high capacity magazines.  Maybe banning those magazines will reduce the demand from many that pistols and military style semi-auto assault weapons actually be banned.  (This just might be a doable compromise)."
  • This one is from a good friend who belongs to a local gun club and loves shooting his guns: "To me the problem is that just because you can legally buy a gun does not mean that you can safely own or operate one – in Minnesota you only need to pass a local and federal background check to buy a handgun – no training or proof of safety or proficiency required – less than required to get a driver’s license. I’m not sure that banning extended magazines would have prevented this shooting –but perhaps would have saved several lives. I would favor requiring potential gun buyers be required to submit to drug and alcohol testing and then physiological  test (for stability and violent tendencies) before they obtain the permit to buy. Let's hope that this tragedy will open some honest dialog and we can bring some “common sense” back to gun violence in this country. "
  • And another: " As a hunter and gun owner I believe there eventually has to be some distinction made between legitimate sporting arms and firearms that no one particularly needs to have in their possession or variations of those firearms.  That along with screening of buyers seems reasonable.  What bothers me further is that all sellers of firearms may not be particularly scrupulous and would not necessarily follow any laws reasonably passed.  How we can ensure that only legal sales are contracted I do not know, but considerable regulation would probably be necessary and would no doubt be lobbied against by gun manufacturers."
  • I am a gun owner and an avid bird hunter. I have several long guns that I store in a gun safe when I am not hunting. I do not own any hand guns. I can not think of any reason to own a hand gun. I think I would feel uncomfortable having a hand gun in my house. I travel to Canada, where guns are registered, to hunt. When I cross the border, I am required to register my shotguns and pay a small fee. I do not find this process to be unreasonable or onerous.I strongly disagree with those who defend the ownership of "assault weapons" of any sort. To summarize, I am a gun owner and a hunter who would be happy to see some restrictions placed on gun ownership. I would support the required registration of all guns, and an outright ban on the sale and ownership of a carefully defined category of assault weapons."
  • Famously, this one comes from not a friend of mine but former Vice President Dick Cheney in a recent interview:"Cheney, an avid hunter said he is "willing to listen to ideas" on how to better control the purchase and use of firearms."  
  • "As a hunter, gun owner & most of all, a custom gun maker, I stand firmly behind the right to bear arms. But to me, the most serious threat to that right is not gun laws but gun violence. In fact, national gun laws, well-written, well-funded and well-enforced are the long overdue solution to this violence. The American people will never favor any gun ban unless we, the hunter/shooter gun owning community, leaves them no other option to curb gun violence.  They greatly prefer sensible measures like safe storage, universal background checks & heavy penalties for gun traffickers. Let's get these laws passed & funded."
  • " Just because I'm a pheasant hunter doesn't mean I think we need semi-automatic weapons on every street corner. I don't think the founding fathers anticipated "arms" such as the ones we have today with 30 round ammunition clips when they wrote the Second Amendment. And I would have no problem with registering my own guns either. "


    I have not heard any convincing reason from the NRA or those who write on my blog about why high capacity magazines are necessary for their self defense or hunting. From the comments above, you can see that the NRA has not convinced these friends of mine, and the majority, who can see that high capacity ammunition magazines are not necessary for anything other than shooting lots of people at one time. I am grateful to have such reasonable friends and acquaintances who I know support what I am doing. 


    In fact, I have read few articles, opinions or commentary supporting the views of the NRA. Instead, thousands of articles, political cartoons, tweets and even some videos tend towards support for common sense. Take a look at this video for a lighter but true version of the chasm between reason and rhetoric. The message is made more simple because of the medium. But in this video actual people visiting the recent SHOT gun show in Las Vegas, responded to a question about whether or not 30 round ammunition clips are needed for self defense. Listen as each one says "No".


    And finally, to emphasize almost everything I have been blogging about and commenting about, here is yet another gun owner who has the nerve to say that more guns do not make us safer. The last paragraph from the New York Times article by Tim Egan, is:" He’s right. Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive." And I don't even know this writer. How could he be using the very same words I have been using? Egan cites a 2009 study by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine: " What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer."


    A few days ago Mayors Against Illegal Guns released their new polling data after the Tucson shootings. I couldn't be more excited about the results. I have given examples of my own friends who believe that I am doing the right thing and who support me in my cause. They are reasonable gun owners and hunters. But this new polling data reinforces what I have always known. 90% of those who own guns agree with those who don't that we need to fix the gap in our current gun laws to prevent those with serious mental illness from getting guns. Well over 80% of both groups agree that all gun sales should require background checks. When looking at the questions asked, you will see much more agreement than disagreement. I have discussed polling by Republican pollster Frank Luntz many times in my posts.The results were similar to the more recent poll cited above. Reasonable gun owners support reasonable gun restrictions. On most questions asked, gun owners agreed with me. When specific questions about individual areas of "gun control" are asked, even gun owners and NRA members know that reason can prevail without impinging on their rights.


    I don't know how the NRA manages to keep intimidating our elected leaders. With polling results like this, they have no leg to stand on. Do they represent majority views or is their influence based on a myth? Notice how few of the gun owners polled in the latest post Tucson shooting belong to the NRA-26%. If that is representative, as random polls are meant to be, then why do our leaders listen to this vocal minority? 


    Thanks to my friends; thanks to reasonable gun owners all over the country; thanks to all who support doing the right thing. Thanks to New York Times writer, Charles Blow for mentioning that President Obama has an opportunity on Tuesday night in his State of the Union address, to do the right and brave thing about gun policy. After Tucson, how can he avoid mentioning the word "gun" in his speech? The majority is now waiting for Congress and President Obama to represent common sense and the many victims of gun violence in our country.




    126 comments:

    1. If 10 rounds is sufficient then should not the police and military by limited to 10 round magazines as well? If not the military then certainly the police that are themselves civilians as well, true?

      If a magazine that holds more then 10 rounds is not needed for defense, then why would the police need them? They use them for defense do they not?

      ReplyDelete
    2. Apparently, there are civilians who feel they have the right to be as fully armed as soldiers and policemen. I suspect that many who feel this way want to be able to commit treason by taking up arms against the duly elected government of our country. This was the position of Sharon Angle when she spoke of second amendment solutions. I disagree with this extreme position. I don't think our constitution provides for the destruction of the state that it constitutes.

      ReplyDelete
    3. My first choice regarding gun laws, if I had the authority, would be to enact national universal background checks, require weapons to be safely stored when not in the immediate control of the owner and make serious examples of gun traffickers through STIFF penalties.
      There are ways to do background checks without any record keeping; this unfortunately would not allow gun tracing to catch the traffickers, but it would turn prohibited buyers away at the point of sale. Most sellers, being honest folks (& in fear of the law) would comply with it. And that would reduce the illicit gun pool. I personally prefer enough record keeping to get the traffickers, but if it's a concern for other gun people, then I'd leave it out.
      Limiting the capacity of detachable magazines to 10 rounds also makes sense. "Detachable" is key here. I think firearms that have integral magazines, particularily tube magazines below the barrel, are not very serviceable for mass shootings as these weapons can't be easily concealed (unless you shorten the barrel, which then shortens the magazine.)
      And, of course, Class III folks don't need to be included in any detachable magazine law; they do their own safety thing well enough to make even the muzzle loading fraternity jealous.
      The military & police have their own needs, especially the military.
      Brent Gurtek

      ReplyDelete
    4. "I hunt, know many people who hunt and yet do not know people who use a hand gun, especially with a clip with multiple bullet options, as a hunting weapon."

      You really need to work harder to find more believable shills. "A clip with multiple bullet options"? Really? No gun owner would use that language.

      There hasn't been a firearm in common use that used a clip since the M1 Garand rifle, which went out of service in 1963. The term under discussion is magazine, and magazine and clip have different meanings and are very much not interchangeable.

      So, when you quote someone who uses language like that, the impression that you leave with everyone who knows anything at all about guns is that the speaker is fundamentally ignorant about guns. And it raises questions about your own competency, in not recognizing the error.

      ReplyDelete
    5. "'Detachable' is key here. I think firearms that have integral magazines, particularily tube magazines below the barrel"

      Does this mean that you oppose Rep. McCarthy's bill? Because it includes all firearms with internal magazines of over 10 rounds, except for internal tubular magazines in .22 caliber only.

      ReplyDelete
    6. That's a ridiculous comment jdege. You guys are so hung up on the small details that you fail to see the large picture. These are not shills at all. The fact that you say that says more about you than it does about me and those who support me. You just can't stand the fact that there are gun owners and hunters who support reasonable gun restrictions. You can say what you want and call my friends or me names or pick away at little details, but you cannot escape the fact that most do not agree with you.

      ReplyDelete
    7. "That's a ridiculous comment jdege. You guys are so hung up on the small details that you fail to see the large picture."

      If you're going to convince gun owners, you're going to have to learn to express yourself in a way that doesn't immediately convince them that you're ignorant.

      If I was looking for legal advice, I'd not listen to someone who didn't know the difference between a tort and a misdemeanor. Or for medical advice someone who doesn't know what "oncology" means.

      You're never going to convince gun owners that your advice is worth listening to, if you can't tell the difference between a magazine or a clip.

      Remember this?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

      It's this sort of thing that makes most people who hear you think that you're a bunch of fools driven by emotion with no understanding at all either of the technologies your regulating or of the likely outcomes of your proposals.

      If you're going to argue for a ban on certain magazines, it really is incumbent on you to understand what a magazine is. And to know how it differs from a clip.

      ReplyDelete
    8. I would hazard a guess here that there is a huge difference between some hunters who are not so into the guns that they think about them night and day not saying something totally correctly and a doctor who doesn't know what oncology means. One is a professional who treats people for disease and went through many years of training to get there and the other is a recreational gun user and hunter who has guns for the pleasure of hunting and being in the woods and shooting game. Hardly a valid comparison. Just so you know, several of the people who responded are doctors.

      ReplyDelete
    9. Joan: Were you honest about the groups with which you're affiliated when you asked your anonymous "gun owners" and "hunters" for their support?

      Were you honest in the proposals governing "assault weapons" and "sniper rifles" -- honest right down to the specific details of what would be banned (hunting rifles and shotguns).

      Would you still get their support?

      ReplyDelete
    10. For all gun idiots out there- please do not do what a lot of other people do, according to this, " Clip: A device for holding cartridges together, usually to facilitate loading. Widely used as a synonym for "magazine" (although most firearm authorities consider this substandard usage). Technically, a magazine has a feeding spring, a clip does not." Apparently the term clip is "widely" used as a synonym for a magazine. So if it is widely used that way, it is not just a few people on my blog who have made the horrendous mistake of using one word for another. Apologies to the gun guys commenting here for all the stupid people out there who have made this mistake.

      ReplyDelete
    11. Hmmm - not going to publish things that don't ask the right questions.

      Did you, or did you not tell your gun-owning and hunting "friends" about the proposal ban on "sniper" rifles?

      ReplyDelete
    12. jdege,

      If Rep. McCarthy has not weeded out manually operated magazine guns with integral magazines from her bill, then she put a potential obstacle in front of it.

      I'll bet she has no/little knowledge of the '73 Winchester, et al. (You really have to be up on your gun history to make palatable gun laws that can sail through to enactment. It ain't easy.)

      Of course, her law would only ban future manufacture & transfer of guns with such magazines. So if you own a '73 now, would you have to employ some approved plug to get the capacity to 10 rds in order to transfer it?

      A lot of these peripheral issues could be addressed if folks on both sides got together & discussed things. They could likely figure them out w/o too much trouble.

      Brent G.

      ReplyDelete
    13. I wouldn't fault a non-gun owner for using clip when they mean magazine, because most of the media gets it wrong as well, and that's probably where most of their experience and knowledge of firearms comes from. Just because its commonly used doesn't mean its correct.

      I don't think its nitpicking when people who should know better don't. They ridicule people like McCarthy because they're looking to regulate things they very clearly don't understand, which we find insulting.

      I'm sure there are gun owners who make the mistake of using the wrong word, so it's not always a guaranteed indication that they're completely ignorant of firearms. I guess it's just become something of a red flag to look for when they make obvious mistakes like that.

      ReplyDelete
    14. "A brave man, Meacham, to dare to mention that he is a gun owner and a hunter and yet favors reasonable gun laws."

      Meacham is not a gun owner. He is what is colloquially known among gun enthusiasts as a "Fudd". He only owns guns as a consequence of hunting. He is under the delusion that the 2nd Amendment protects hunting and sport shooting. He shares this delusion with your quoted friends, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, the Brady Campaign, and our two recently appointed Supreme Court justices. Thankfully, Fudds make up less than 15% of people who own guns

      Personally, I am unconcerned with the opinions of Fudds when it comes to the issue of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not about shooting Bambi and Thumper twice a year with your great grandpappy's muzzle loader. It's not about fine rifles and shotguns. It's not about sporting arms or collecting antiques.

      The 2nd Amendment is the Appleseed Project. It is the ugly, black plastic covered, semi-automatic guns with the 30 round magazines. The 2nd Amendment protects the non-sporting arms and usable, modern guns. Specifically the ones that you shoot people with, not furry woodland critters.

      "Maybe banning those magazines will reduce the demand from many that pistols and military style semi-auto assault weapons actually be banned. (This just might be a doable compromise)."

      Baloney. After the last Assault Weapons ban was passed, the very next thing the gun banners did was draft Brady Bill II which included a ban on even more firearms.

      I don't think you really know the meaning of compromise. Compromise doesn't mean you can take something from me and I should be glad to have what little you left me with. That's called "theft". Compromise is when both parties give and receive. If you want a magazine ban, you have to give us something in exchange.

      Unsurprisingly, none of the gun control bloggers can name a single gun law they'd repeal in exchange for a gun law they want passed. So there won't be any support for a ban from me.

      ReplyDelete
    15. To answer your leading question,McKenzie with the assumption that I was not honest- a resounding YES. They all know with whom I am affiliated and they support what I am doing 100%. TO ALL OF MY READERS- I JUST ATTENDED A POLITICAL EVENT ABOUT HEALTH CARE WHERE THERE WERE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTED LEADERS ( DEMOCRATS ALL) . EVERY ONE OF THEM SUPPORT WHAT I AM DOING. IN FACT, ONE CITY COUNCILOR WHO IS A GUN OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER AND HUNTS A LOT TOLD ME HE SUPPORTED EVERYTHING I AM DOING. They know specifically what the assault weapons ban is and was and agree that some types of rifles should not be allowed in the market place. I don't know why you guys think that no one agrees with me. I have a name locally and state-wide and am respected by most for what I do. I have a lot of contacts around the state and the country. I am seen as a credible person who has integrity.

      ReplyDelete
    16. Rep. McCarthy has a keen understanding of what she is doing. I heard her speak at her press conference and she knows what she is talking about. She does not operate in a vacuum but gets advice from others before stating her positions. Since her husband was killed by a nut with a semi automatic rifle and her son was permanently disabled, she can talk about this issue with an authority and empathy that none of you can.

      ReplyDelete
    17. If you guys don't think these types of gun owners exist, you don't spend much time interacting with gun owners. I hear this kind of stuff regularly, including even competitive shooters who mix up clip and magazine. Hunters are the worst in regards to both gun knowledge and gun rights. Many gun owners don't care what kind of restrictions you put on other people, as long as they don't see themselves as affected.

      I have no doubt many of the people quoted by Joan are real gun owners. Ones that believe in broad based gun bans are rare, but you'll find support for much of the Brady agenda among many.

      But that doesn't translate into political support, which is why the Brady's lose. Much of that support will also erode when they know a buddy who gets thrown in federal prison for transferring a Henry lever action, or who gave a friend a spare 12 round magazine for his 22 pistol he had forgotten about.

      You're talking about objects millions of gun owners possessing these magazines, Joan. Many of them don't follow closely what Congress is doing. Do they all belong in federal prison? That's what McCarthy's bill does.

      ReplyDelete
    18. Thanks, Sebastian. I really can't see how the McCarthy bill would mean they would all end up in prison. If they don't use 30 round magazines, which none have told me they do, they don't have much to worry about. Tell me more about your statement.

      ReplyDelete
    19. It makes possession and transfer a crime, with possession legal only under exceptions, such as owning it before e ban. It puts the burden on the citizen to prove that, rather than on the government to prove they did not.

      Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are ubiquitous. They are owned by tens of millions of Americans. I have a few 12 rounders for a target .22 no one would think of as a weapon. Many peope who will be unaware of the law will continue to trade them among friends, not knowing they are committing a felony by doing so. Many will end up in prison becaue they couldn't prove their poses son was exempted.

      These people are not killers. They aren't robbers, rapists or thieves. Yet the penalty is 10 years in federal prison for illegal possession or transfer. Why is Brady supporting this? Do you want otherwise good people rotting in federal prison because they owned a 12 round magazine?

      ReplyDelete
    20. Kaveman- you are not welcome on this blog any more. Don't bother commenting and I will not publish anything you write. Remember, I keep all of the comments.

      ReplyDelete
    21. I think you ARE well known Joan - the problem I feel is that you're not speaking both sides of the story to these "supporters".

      Your "friends" you've quoted above are private citizens, therefore kept out of political debate. However, I'd like the name of the "ONE CITY COUNCILOR WHO IS A GUN OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER AND HUNTS A LOT TOLD ME HE SUPPORTED EVERYTHING I AM DOING" (your capitalization, not mine). If he's a public official, there would be nothing wrong with alerting him via letter to the finer points of the proposed legislation, as well as the finer points of the Brady Agenda.

      Just want to make sure our elected officials are on the same page with the info!

      ReplyDelete
    22. Alan,

      My point was, if magazines that hold more than 10 rounds have no value for defense as some on your side and the very language of McCarthy's bill would argue, then why would police officers need an exemption? Why would they need to possess them? They do not carry out offensive actions like the military does.

      It seems to me that supporters of a magazine ban would want to include the police as well if you want the supply to dry up and go away. As long as there is a market, they will continue to be manufactured.

      So please tell me if a 12 - 30 round magazine is no good for defense why are police officers, that carry a gun only for defense of themselves or others, need to be exempted?

      ReplyDelete
    23. To Sebastian, and others, where would you draw the line on the capacity of magazines? From what I've been able to ascertain 10 rd mags. is a reasonable number. Perhaps 12 rds. would work, but most mfg's of magazines go from 10 to higher numbers. I think we're looking at pistols and military style assault weapons when arriving at 10 rds.

      Others have criticized the use of the word "clip" when the user may have meant "magazine". I've only been involved with guns for 65 years, incl the U.S. Army, and the word "clip" was the only word used in civilian terms, even if "magazine" would have been more correct.

      I also have had a career in law enforcement, including working with prosecutors, and I know that most unintentional, minor violations, are dealt with short of putting people in prison, or even charging them with a crime.

      So, let's get real, and quit the nit-picking. The military needs the best weaponry available. Law enforcement does deal with criminals using high cap. mags, but that just doesn't justify the argument that civilians must have them, too.
      (Unless you're taking on the government)

      I am a U.S. citizen. I am a gun owner. I have served my country in the military and in law enforcement - but, even if I hadn't, I would have
      the right to live in a society where the NRA and other "gun-rights" advocates do not control what my state legislature and the Congress does
      in regard to reasonable firearm regulation. You are a powerful political group, but, that doesn't mean you're right. And, you are definitely a minority. The Constitution protects my right to the pursuit of happiness, as well.

      .45 Colt

      ReplyDelete
    24. You know, sometimes I wonder why you all are so vindictive and ugly.

      ReplyDelete
    25. Luckily for us, if you look at polls done by organizations that are not gun control groups, the public has not really moved at all on this issue (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm).

      Just like you'd rightly criticize us for using polling data from, say, an NRA poll, it is fair for us to criticize you for touting MAIG polls. They are a fellow traveler in the gun control cause and if you ask a poll the right way you can get any answer you'd like.

      Also luckily for us, while gun control consistently is supported by around 1/3 of the population, I have a strong suspicion that the 1/3 is heavily concentrated in just a few places.

      So, I'd say that's why your legislative agenda is not moving. Congressmen also pay attention to polling data (or hire people to do it for them), and they know that most of their constituents realize that reflexive knee-jerk gun control isn't a smart or effective policy.

      ReplyDelete
    26. You know, sometimes I wonder why you all are so vindictive and ugly.

      Possibly because, as Sebastian points out, your side is supporting laws that would put us into the federal pen for 5 to 10 for what we see as no good reason. :-P

      Also, I think it goes back to the disconnect we discussed earlier -- while I can't speak for others, I certainly don't intend to be mean or vindictive. When we emphasize how the law actually works, or the technical details of a firearm, we feel that we are expressing the enthusiasm of a hobbyist. And because these laws actually impact us, we tend to actually read them and try to figure out how they work. However, I think I can see how that sort of detail-oriented discussion may seem nit-picky or aggressive from another point of view, because you care more about victims and personal stories than the details.

      I also feel that a person's private tragedy is just that -- private. I don't think any public comment on private tragedies is necessary or appropriate. However, if someone uses their personal experience to advocate for legislative change, it is fair to examine -- and if necessary, critique -- their legislative proposals. As an example, we don't make foreign policy based on what victims of 9/11 want to do; we look at their ideas just like we look at anyone else's ideas and then evaluate the proposals. On the flip side, I have gotten the impression that any questioning of the ideas of people who have experienced a tragedy is unacceptable to you because you think we are trying to attack the person on a personal level.

      I don't exactly know how to mend the rift. From our point of view, we can't give anyone who has experienced a personal tragedy a free pass to dictate firearms laws any more than we can allow families of 9/11 victims to dictate whether or not Muslims can build a Mosque in NYC or whether or not we should invade a Middle Eastern country. I think it would help if we make a concerted effort to highlight that we disagree with the idea, not with the person.

      Frankly, I have no problem with you as a person. As you say you seem like a "nice lady." If you visited Alaska then I'd tell you where the best microbrewery is (if you like beer) and give you a halibut fillet (assuming you life fish) and loan you a can of bear spray. It is just your ideas that I find disagreeable.

      Cheers,
      Chris from AK

      ReplyDelete
    27. Chris-MAIG used independent firms to do their polling. The Brady Campaign does this as well. You are missing the fact that in almost every poll taken for the past 20 years or so, the results, when specific gun control measures are asked about separately, the answers have been similar. In several recent polls in Minnesota, it has turned out the same as well regarding background checks. Gun control is supported by much more than 1/3 by the way. You are wrong. I don't see even where you get that figure from the polling results you shared here.

      ReplyDelete
    28. But Chris- you just now turned up the heat on the debate by saying this: " dictate firearms laws". Who is dictating anything? This is a Democracy. Reps and Senators sponsor bills and then go about the business of gaining support. I am hoping in this case that there will be support for McCarthy's bill and I will be working hard to get it. Your fears, I believe, are unfounded.If you think that 12 round magazines should be allowed, why don't you lobby for that? The burden of proof will be on the government if someone is charged with being in possession of a grandfathered high capacity magazine. If some object to the transfer of grandfathered magazines, they will take a look at that and make changes if necessary but it will take longer then to take those magazines out of the market and thus, potentially out of the hands of the people who should not have them.

      ReplyDelete
    29. "To Sebastian, and others, where would you draw the line on the capacity of magazines?"

      I wouldn't draw a line, because the line would be pointless. Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people in the UK where guns with detachable magazines are banned. He accomplished that feat with a single shot .22 and a break action shotgun. So it's obvious that drawing a line isn't going to stop spree shooters. It's just going to make them change their tactics. They'll carry multiple guns or like Derrick Bird, simply drive around shooting random people at leisure from the safety of their car.


      "So, let's get real, and quit the nit-picking. The military needs the best weaponry available. Law enforcement does deal with criminals using high cap. mags, but that just doesn't justify the argument that civilians must have them, too."

      But if we ban high capacity magazines, the criminals won't have them, right? That's supposed to be end result is it not? If so, then the police won't need high capacity magazines either. If not, then do I not deserve as much of a chance to defend myself as the criminals and police?

      If you're going to ban me from buying high capacity magazines, do the intellectually honest thing and ban everyone form buying them. The military got along quite well with the M1 Garand and it's 8 rounds of ammo. They can deal with 10 just like everyone else.

      ReplyDelete
    30. "The burden of proof will be on the government if someone is charged with being in possession of a grandfathered high capacity magazine."

      No. This is not true at all. Possession is illegal by default under MCarthy's bill. You can only posses under exception, which is on the burden of the possessor to prove.

      ReplyDelete
    31. Chris-MAIG used independent firms to do their polling. The Brady Campaign does this as well.

      So if NRA hired an independent firm to do their polling, those results would be equally valid? Whoa, whoa, probably not. The link I posted had the results of numerous polls from mainstream media sources and respected national pollsters like Pew. The point is that the public opinion hasn't moved on control in the wake of the AZ shootings. There have even been some mainstream media articles to this effect! The long term trend is also downward, from a peak in the 90s.

      You can get the results you want by asking the questions the right way. You are absolutely right that when MAIG asks, "Should all gun sales at gun shows be subject to background checks?" a lot of people said yes. If we ask the question, "Should private sales of firearms be forbidden?" then the number will probably be a lot lower.

      The politicians know which poll data they're going to use. That is pretty clear.

      \\

      But Chris- you just now turned up the heat on the debate by saying this: " dictate firearms laws". Who is dictating anything?

      I didn't intend to escalate any sort of row. I feel that the way that things come across to us sometimes is:

      - Person A who has suffered a firearms-related tragedy proposes a gun control idea.
      - Gun-rights advocates pick apart the merits of the idea and criticize it.
      - Gun control supporters say, "any attack on the idea is a slap in the face to the victim!"

      That is, it seems that sometimes you just want us to sit down and shut up when a victim puts forth a gun control idea. That would allow certain individuals to dictate policy to the rest of society. To use my previous analogy -- some families of people who died in 9/11 oppose building a mosque in NYC near ground zero. Is it offensive to the victims to oppose their view and support building a mosque? I don't think so. But if we just sat down and said, "Well, they're victims and it is rude for us to oppose them" instead of vigorously contesting their ideas and promoting the ideal of freedom of religion, then we would effectively allow them to dictate policy. I can have empathy for their loss and yet still oppose their policy proposal because freedom of religion is an important value for me.

      \\

      The burden of proof will be on the government if someone is charged with being in possession of a grandfathered high capacity magazine.

      That is not the way the law is worded now, I'm afraid. Now it is an affirmative defense, which means that it is up to the accused -- who has been charged with a crime and probably put in jail (or let out on bail) -- to prove their innocence. The presumption is that simple possession is illegal.

      These gun laws apply to us in a very tangible and personal way. You won't get thrown in jail if this law is passed. We might. So it behooves us to really read them and understand them.

      ReplyDelete
    32. First of all, Chris, you have not seen all the comments I don't publish which are directed at victims. It is actually a slap in the face to victims if they are unfairly attacked. There have been some brutal and unfair attacks of Rep. McCarthy here that are totally unwarranted. And then there is the assumotion that just because someone is a victim, they know nothing and are only acting on emotion which is not true at all.

      As to your idea that people like you will automatically be thrown in jai, I just don't see it and I don't think that is the intent of the bill. So when would you be in a position, by the way, to be caught by police for having more than a 10 round ammunition magazine? Under what situation would that happen? I am hoping you wouldn't be in a mall parking lot looking suspicous enough to be questioned by police while carrying one of these large magazines around with you? After what happened in Tucson, it may be a good idea to be suspicious of such.

      ReplyDelete
    33. "So when would you be in a position, by the way, to be caught by police for having more than a 10 round ammunition magazine? Under what situation would that happen?"

      In Alaska, when you are carrying a concealed firearm and have ANY contact with a police officer, you are required to disclose to them that you are carrying a firearm. Having contact with a police officer does NOT imply any wrongdoing on the carrier's part. It is CONTACT, not detention. Detention requires reasonable suspicion (your suspicious mall rat example). Contact requires nothing. If an officer walks up to me and says "Hey, nice day today!" I would have to disclose my carrying status to them.

      I believe there are a few other states with that law in place.

      Regardless as to what you think the intent of the bill is, the way it is currently worded is as Chris and Sebastian said.

      ReplyDelete
    34. A shooter that is proficient at tactical or emergency reloads can cause a lot of damage with smaller magazines, fortunately for the Tucson victims, this idiot was slow at changing mags and I think made the mistake of allowing a slide lock because he emptied his gun. Limiting mag size won't stop gun violence.

      Making larger mags illegal won't stop the goblins from having them, remember they don't obey the law. We have laws against drugs and it's still a huge issue. There are laws for drunk driving yet innocent victims are killed every day by DD's. I know that if you are opposed to guns none of this will change your mind but laws are only as good as those who obey them.

      ReplyDelete
    35. "There have been some brutal and unfair attacks of Rep. McCarthy here that are totally unwarranted."

      She's been attacked for having demonstrated, by her own statements, that she has no understanding of the laws she would impose on us.

      That she had authored a bill that would ban barrel shrouds, but clearly had no idea what a barrel shroud was, indicates that she not only didn't know, but didn't care what effect her legislation would have on ordinary gun owners.

      "I am hoping you wouldn't be in a mall parking lot looking suspicous enough to be questioned by police while carrying one of these large magazines around with you? After what happened in Tucson, it may be a good idea to be suspicious of such."

      And now your own prejudices are showing. You clearly believe that carrying around a standard magazine is in itself a perverse act. And that shows a disdain for the ordinary gun owner that is really rather extraordinary.

      ReplyDelete
    36. Japete,

      I'm happy that you have friends who share your views, but I have many who share mine. Firearms serve many purposes beyond hunting or even just self defense.

      I think you would find a very small number of people who view the second amendment as having an unlimited scope. Certainly the court has not held that. What differs is where we all draw the line. Even the NRA is not advocating that private civilian aircraft should be allowed to weld on hard points and attach sidewinder missiles.

      It is unfortunate that the rhetoric on this issue (like so many others) is so heated and polarized.

      What seems like reasonable laws to you may seem very unreasonable to another equally well informed and intelligent person.

      For example, there is a law currently that if you have been convicted of a felony you lose your gun rights for life, with no chance to appeal that. I favored this until recently when I heard of a case where a man in his 70's who had no idea he would be barred from owning a handgun was denied his transfer because he was in a fist fight with a park ranger as a teenager. I'm certain that law was not intended to bar this gentleman from owning a gun 50 years later because he went skinny-dipping and then got a little attitude when he was young and reckless.

      I simply have to disagree with where you place the line on what is reasonable or 'common sense'

      ReplyDelete
    37. Occasions when you could be caught with a >10 round Magazine:

      Use a gun in Self defense while carrying said magazine.

      Officer notices your concealed weapon and conducts a Terry type "stop and frisk" before checking if you have a carry permit.

      Officers find magazine when surveying your home after a break in.

      Officer sees the magazine at a shooting range.

      Traffic stop where officer sees magazine in back seat on the way to the range.

      Officer sees magazine when searching home based on crank call from angry neighbor.

      Etc.

      ReplyDelete
    38. This is an excellent post, Japete. Thank you for it. It is refreshing to see quotes from gun owners you know who support our views. Like you, I have not real problem with people who wish to have a gun for hunting, or even a gun for self defense (as long as they are stored locked and unloaded and don't have various risk factors), but common sense legislation will greatly reduce the shocking annual death toll in our country.

      ReplyDelete
    39. A related post at New Trajectory: http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/01/moderate-gun-owners-speak-up-we-have.html

      ReplyDelete
    40. I get a kick of how the pro-gun extremists like to pick on the wording. Very often people just mis-speak, some people aren't interested in being precise when speaking. Others really don't know the proper names of things.

      jdege and some of the others love to point this out. It must make them feel superior. Instead of sticking to the argument, they try to discredit their opponents in this way.

      I think the vast majority of gun owners favor reasonable restrictions. I've always said that, and now there are some polls which say it's true. I've always said it not based on studies or polls, but on logic and common sense. Who in their right mind would oppose background checks on all gun sales, for example, other than extremists? And extremists are, by definition, in the minority.

      ReplyDelete
    41. "As to your idea that people like you will automatically be thrown in jai, I just don't see it and I don't think that is the intent of the bill."

      The original 1994 ban placed the burden on the government to prove the possession was unlawful. That clause was removed. So either the collective minds that drafted the bill have no idea what the were doing, which is ard to believe, or it was intentional.

      ReplyDelete
    42. "jdege and some of the others love to point this out. It must make them feel superior. Instead of sticking to the argument, they try to discredit their opponents in this way."

      The point of my post was that she was discrediting herself, in the eyes of most gun owners, because of the sloppy language she used.

      I didn't call her ignorant, I told her she is being perceived as being ignorant by the people she claims to want to reach.

      Which she is.

      If she was actually interested in persuading people, she'd be listening to me.

      ReplyDelete
    43. " If she was actually interested in persuading people, she'd be listening to me. "

      That's pretty arrogant, don't you think? Our leaders need to listen to many voices and not just the strong, well funded, influential and vocal groups who do not necessarily represent the majority.

      ReplyDelete
    44. To Sebastian, and others, where would you draw the line on the capacity of magazines? From what I've been able to ascertain 10 rd mags. is a reasonable number. Perhaps 12 rds. would work, but most mfg's of magazines go from 10 to higher numbers. I think we're looking at pistols and military style assault weapons when arriving at 10 rds.

      Others have criticized the use of the word "clip" when the user may have meant "magazine". I've only been involved with guns f

      ReplyDelete
    45. Anonymous,

      I see no reason for any magazine capacity limits. There is zero empirical evidence that magazine bans do anything to reduce violent crime or fatalities. Several states have experimented with fairly strict bans: CA, MA, HI, NY all have 10-round limits (as does DC). NJ has a 15 round limit and MD has a 20 round limit. This provides ample chance to survey any benefits of these laws. It is one of the features of federalism that the states can act as "laboratories of democracy" to try out laws and see if they work.

      LCAV has a summary of these laws (http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf), for example, but if you look at the footnotes there is zero evidence presented that the laws actually work. Nat'l Academy of Sciences in 2004 conducted a broad literature review and found nothing to support the idea that the old AWB or other magazine restrictions actually reduced crime.

      So, it seems to me that we are talking about imposing significant costs for no benefit. Those costs could be sending Sebastian and I to jail, wasted law enforcement resources spent prosecuting non-violent gun owners that possess evil magazines, and limiting the firepower of defenders (who likely only has one mag in her firearm and maybe 1-2 more, but maybe no extras) while doing nothing to impact aggressors (who are looking for trouble). There would also be significant costs imposed on the US military; every single non-reusable belt-link for their crew served weapons would have to be microengraved with a serial number and tracked by s/n, and every standard capacity magazine would have to be issued and tracked by s/n. That's a lot of wasted tax dollars. Local police -- funded by local taxes -- would have similar bookkeeping expenses.

      Then again, if you look at putting people like Sebastian and I into prison as a benefit then I suppose this law may be beneficial. If your goal is actually to reduce deaths in violent crimes then unfortunately this sort of law doesn't seem to have a good track record in the places where it has been tried.

      Cheers,
      Chris from AK

      ReplyDelete
    46. Well I, for one, would not like to see you or Sebastian in jail.I have doubts that that would be the result of this bill. If there are unintended consequences such as you suggest, I'm sure they will be discovered in the course of talking a good look at the bill. You must know that Congress is not trying to put law abiding citizens in jail on purpose and Rep. McCarthy has the public safety in mind and also keeping people like Loughner from killing more people at a time than he did in Tucson. No one is out to get any of you folks, though you seem to think they are.

      ReplyDelete
    47. Chris-" but if you look at the footnotes there is zero evidence presented that the laws actually work." I took a look at the footnotes and I don't know what you are talking about. I don't think this article was meant to discuss the effectiveness one way or another of the AWB. The footnotes don't say the AWB did or didn't work, actually.

      ReplyDelete
    48. Joan said:
      "You must know that Congress is not trying to put law abiding citizens in jail on purpose and Rep. McCarthy has the public safety in mind and also keeping people like Loughner from killing more people at a time than he did in Tucson. No one is out to get any of you folks, though you seem to think they are."

      But it happens all the time here's one example:
      http://briandaitken.com/2010/11/free-brian-aitken/

      Brian Aitkin did nothing wrong, was not a criminal, did not have mental health issues yet he was jailed for legally possessed firearms.

      ReplyDelete
    49. Just as an addendum to what Chris said, the argument for a national high cap ban or AWB is often that outlawing these magazines and weapons nation wide will reduce the trafficking of weapons from states where higher capacity guns and magazines are legal to ones where they are illegal. However, the wide availability of illegal drugs in the US is proof that the traffic of such items from Mexico and other locations is both profitable and reasonably easy. Magazines could simply be imported the same way (tunnels under the border etc.) making them available to anyone wanting them badly enough.

      Laughner is reported to have been a bit of a pot head. If he, as a college student, could get his hands on pot, what would have prevented him from getting illegal magazines through the same channels? Had there been a ban, he would have had to pay more, but a determined killer like him could have gotten the money (theft from parents or others; saving by foregoing his pot for a while, etc.)

      A ban will not stop a determined spree shooter; it will create headaches for everyone else whose pistol came with a standard 12-15 round magazine.

      ReplyDelete
    50. Joan, I believe the reason your hunter friends are apathetic towards gun rights is because they don't need to hunt. If it became illegal to hunt tomorrow, they could buy their meat at Piggly Wiggly instead. Similarly, the overwhelming number of recreational shooters wouldn't die if their sport was crippled by a 10 round magazine limitation. In fact, shooting sports might become more challenging as players are forced to use the speed reload, so eventually we would have more shooters like this.

      However, not all gun owners are hunters or recreational shooters.

      Defense is the most important use of a firearm. It is so important, in fact, that the right is clearly stated in our Oregon Constitution, "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves." Many other states have this right codifed in their constitutions as well. It is our right to defend ourselves against a sociopath with multiple weapons; however, unlike that sociopath, most law-abiding citizens only carry one gun and no extra magazines. Since the government has failed to prevent criminals from engaging in illegal activities, like growing marijuana in national forests, there is no reason to believe that the government can prevent future sociopaths from using multiple weapons or illegal high capacity magazines. Therefore it is not common sense to put the burden of the reload on the law- abiding citizen whose sole purpose for their only firearm is self defense.

      Common sense is about finding ways to keep firearms out of offensive hands and not jeopardize those who have the constitutionally protected right to use them defensively.

      ReplyDelete
    51. Chris says, "There is zero empirical evidence that magazine bans do anything to reduce violent crime or fatalities."

      When frustrated this is one of the refuges of the pro-gun argument, along with the Constitution and the Bible.

      Reasonable people don't need "empirical evidence" to admit that which is obvious. Unreasonable people who will never ever admit they're wrong or back down one single step, often make this demand as a sort-of show stopper.

      Naturally when evidence is presented it's not good enough. So we keep getting back to where we started. That's the pro-gun tactic at its best.

      ReplyDelete
    52. It has been asked before and I have yet to hear an answer from anyone....What law do you think could have been in place that would have stopped this MADMAN in Tuscon? Last time I looked, murder was against the law and yet he still managed to murder people.
      The only thing a ban on 'high capacity' magazines will do is keep those people who OBEY the law from having one. If your goal is to stop lawbreakers and violence, then what good would it do to restrict those people who obey the law and who have NEVER shown a violent tendancy. It will have no effect except to anger and inconvenience those of us who have the right to own what we please.
      p.s. - The 2nd ammendment is NOT about hunting and hunters. No reference whatsoever to hunting.

      ReplyDelete
    53. On the face of it, this does seem to be a case of a wrongful arrest. I am wondering if there are other things going on here, though. We live in America. These things should not happen but we all know that sometimes someone serves time for something they did not do. That should not happen. This article-http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/gun_owner_brian_aitken_is_rele.html- indicates that Brian's mother called police because she was worried about his well being. There is not much mention of what that was but if his mother was worried and he had guns in his car, then the police were also probably worried. Given that things like the Tucson shooting happen every day, police have some reason to worry about things like this. This article reveals more information- http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/02/new-jersey-gun-case-highlights-patchwork-state-gun-laws-relatives-experts-say/
      It sounds like, from this article, "his mood darkened" and he was moving from CO to NJ to be closer to his estranged wife and son.

      Thank you Gail for sharing this article. There are all kinds of interesting things to think about from the articles I read. I can see why gun owners are upset about this case. But I also see that there were some things that didn't come out in the trial and that Brian refused to testify on his own behalf. I still think there is more to this story than meets the eye. Perhaps we will find out a bit more now that Brian has been released.

      ReplyDelete
    54. Migo- no one is denying your right to self defense with this proposed measure. Your state constitution and the U.S. Constitution does not say you have a right to defend yourself against a sociopathic killer with large capacity ammunition magazines. It has been shown that you can defend yourself against an intruder in your home with a shotgun or a handgun. It is unlikely that someone is going to come to your home armed with a semi automatic weapon with large capacity magazines. In fact, that just isn't the case and rarely happens. What does happen, though, is that people armed with these types of guns and ammunitions shoot people in public places or high schools or malls or colleges. Now if you think you must have your large capacity magazines on you at all times for that evenetuality, then I guess you will feel like someone is taking away your rights. These things are bulky and hard to carry around, right? You know as well as I that the purpose here is not to stop all of these kinds of shootings but to limit the carnage- sad as that is. To say we are doing this to keep even more people from being shot in such shootings is just so ridiculous. But that is what we are left with given the powerful gun lobby's opposition to any reasonable laws that might actually stop such shootings. We can't stop them all. We all know that as well. We will never do so. But to say we shoudn't even try, given the mass shootings in this country is lunacy.

      ReplyDelete
    55. Cases like this are not unusual.

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5js35SIPSnT-zZ-3D-7BTM8IM6l2w?docId=30eeaafa8e0b4018aaef26112b7251fd

      Innocent people's lives are ruined every year, because of the legal minefields that the gun control movement creates around ordinary gun ownership.

      ReplyDelete
    56. The last time I checked, Bjerstein, there was also no reference in the Second Amendment to the words "self defense". So given that, the second amendment encompasses ownership of guns for hunting and for self defense. It does not, however, give a right for anyone to own any kind of gun and carry it anywhere they want. That is also clear in recent Supreme Court rulings. The rulings did discuss self defense, it is true because the particular cases before them were cases involving the cities of D.C. and Chicago about gun bans in homes.

      ReplyDelete
    57. "mikeb302000 said...

      Reasonable people don't need "empirical evidence" to admit that which is obvious. Unreasonable people who will never ever admit they're wrong or back down one single step, often make this demand as a sort-of show stopper.
      "

      Yes, Mike, we do. That's the very definition of 'reason'...the root of the word 'reasonable':

      "rea·son·a·ble

      –adjective
      1.
      agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
      2.
      not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.
      3.
      moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.
      4.
      endowed with reason.
      5.
      capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.
      "

      Wanting to see empirical evidence to support the claim that a magazine ban will (or DID in the case of AWB94) result in the desired effect as stated is not being 'unreasonable'. We do the same thing with Habeus Corpus...'You need to PROVE this man killed someone before we punish him...show me the body!'

      "Naturally when evidence is presented it's not good enough. So we keep getting back to where we started"

      Pot, meet kettle. Why does this remind me of the 'witch' scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail?:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

      //

      "japete said...

      The last time I checked, Bjerstein, there was also no reference in the Second Amendment to the words "self defense". So given that, the second amendment encompasses ownership of guns for hunting and for self defense.
      "

      Did you accidentally leave out a few words there? Your second sentence directly contradicts your first (and there's no mention of hunting in the first, either.). It's not making sense to me.

      "It does not, however, give a right for anyone to own any kind of gun and carry it anywhere they want."

      This is what's known as a true-ism (not to be confused with a truism, though they are similar); It's factually accurate on it's face but it leaves out other facts that directly contravene it's intended message. As we've covered before, the Constitution does not GRANT rights...it PROTECT rights that already exist.

      "That is also clear in recent Supreme Court rulings. "

      Clear as Mississippi mud. SCOTUS did not address defensive carry outside the home because that was not the question before the court. SCOTUS has yet to rule on such a question. Your repeated parroting of the fact that SCOTUS ruled in favor of self defense 'only in the home' is yet another example of a 'true-ism'.

      ReplyDelete
    58. Japete

      For ten years the AWB was in place, it did nothing to stopcrime. IT can not be argued.  It did nothing but drive prices up, and unreasonably burden gun owners.


      For nearly ninety years, private ownership of guns was nearly
      completely banned in Northern Ireland, yet, the Troubles ran unabated until a political solution was found.

      In Republic of South Africa, ownership of firearms by blacks was prohibited by law for a long time. yet the Uprising that brought about the ANC and others was a fighting war for nearly 50 years.

      Washington DC has banned guns for decades until the recent Heller decision, and even now, tries very hard to deny rightful ownership of those guns, and still, Crime is endemic.

      NYC has had the Sullivan laws since 1911, and it never accomplished anything to stop crime.

      By their very nature, criminals do not obey laws, making laws which disarm and limit gun ownership will not deter criminals from breaking more laws.   Armed robbery, Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon are already major felonies.  Adding more laws does nothing.  It is not amatter of being reasonable, it is a matter of being pragmatic.   We have laws against gun crimes already, and those who wish to break thelaw, really don't care about breaking any other laws.

      Remember, it is always the man or woman behind the crime.  Always has been, all the way back to Cain vs Abel.

      You have posted as to why we are so adamant against what you call"reasonable" restrictions...I believe it comes down to simple liberty and freedom.  There are many Governments around the world which see it as completely reasonable to limit Free Speech, Freedom of Religion,and more.   Do you believe there should be "reasonable" restrictions on Speech, Assembly, and Religion?    Should you be required to get a
      permit from the Government to blog?   To attend Church?  To attend your "four moms on the Capitol Steps ringing the bell" rally's?   To most of us,  we find your "reasonable" restrictions on guns to be just as reasonable as those possible restrictions.

      If you had to spend $100 dollars every five years to get a "speech" permit, or a "church" permit, would you consider that reasonable?

      How about you have to wait three days after notifying the Gov't that you were going to go to Church on Sunday, and had to do this Every single time you went to Church?  Does that sound reasonable to you?

      If it does, then fine, you can keep telling us what are reasonable restrictions to our innate Rights as Humans to self defense and defense against Tyranny.   Otherwise, Consider why it is those of us who have had moments in our lives where we have been forced to look death in the eyes and had to do so unarmed, why we fight so aggressively against laws designed to keep us from having the tools we
      feel we need to preserve our independence and security.

      Gun laws don't work, its been proven time and time again.  Trying to say, this law, this time, will work makes NO sense, nor does it offer any hope to work, excepting to keep me and mine from having the tools of Liberty and Security.  Frankly, in light of the writing of the Constitution and the struggle from whence it came, it is very clear to anyone who has the integrity to look with open eyes, that the Second
      Amendment has nothing to do with sporting uses, but rather the simple understanding that an armed populace is essential to the preservation of Freedom, either in the personal or the plurality of the Citizenry.

      Hubert H Humphrey once stated that the SecondAmendment is the keyprovision that insures that the other Amendments would be honored bythe Government, even though his initial statement only listed the First Amendment.   It was clear in that speech that he was including the others, because without the First and Second, all the rest would fall by the wayside.

      ReplyDelete
    59. Quote ----is that people armed with these types of guns and ammunitions shoot people in public places or high schools or malls or colleges. Now if you think you must have your large capacity magazines on you at all times for that evenetuality, then I guess you will feel like someone is taking away your rights. These things are bulky and hard to carry around, right? ------unquote

      Goggle home invasions. Hundreds of times more home invasions in a year than spree shooters. If all you have the money for is one gun for carry and HD, then I would want a high capacity or extended magazine available. Several instances of home invasions by three or more people are readily available. Recent studies have shown police officers use between 6 and 8 shots when alone and dealing with a single armed assailant. Ok, simple math says that when facing more than one armed assailant who wants to shoot you dead, you might very well need more that ten rounds. THIS is a very real reason why extended magazines are useful.

      ReplyDelete
    60. P. I don't have time to respond to all. I do not agree with most of what you wrote. The quote from Humphrey is not verifiable as true. I've researched it. Your view of the world is not mine and not shared by the majority.

      ReplyDelete
    61. Joan, I just want to quickly clarify a few points:

      The last time I checked, Bjerstein, there was also no reference in the Second Amendment to the words "self defense".

      Many state constitutions specifically reference self defense. The federal constitution prescribes the limits of federal power, allowing the states to govern themselves in the day to day business. That's why state constitutions are often more wordy and specific and why many clearly state the right to bear arms for defense.

      It has been shown that you can defend yourself against an intruder in your home with a shotgun or a handgun.

      I'm not talking about home defense. I'm talking about carrying a small lightweight pistol for defense in the forest or desert where there are numerous opportunities to be killed and help can be hours or days away. If you do the research you will discover murders in the Northwest at rock pits near popular bike trails, the execution of a mother and daughter out for a hike, attacks by cougars, and so on.

      These things are bulky and hard to carry around, right?

      I have a pistol that is 6 inches long, 5 inches high, and weighs about 26 oz. that can hold 13 round or 16 round magazines. I can easily carry it while I'm riding a mountain bike very far away from law enforcement. Shotguns aren't too easy or safe to carry on a bicycle for long distances. The 13 round magazine is about as long as my index finger and can easily be obscured by my hand. 13 rounds is marginal defense against two thugs with old six shot revolvers, although out here in the forests of the Northwest, it's easy to find others who are more heavily armed. In some parts of the forest, near popular shooting sites, I feel more comfortable carrying a pistol with 19 rounds that isn't much larger than the one I described above. Due to budget cuts, many national forests only have two armed law enforcement officers covering a region the size of Vermont. I imagine its even more dangerous living near the southern border states where a rancher and law enforcement officer were murdered in the last year. All of these magazines would be illegal under the new law, even though they are much smaller than the 30 rounds you keep quoting.

      ReplyDelete
    62. "Your view of the world is not mine and not shared by the majority."

      The fundamental rights of minorities are not subject to veto by the majority.

      ReplyDelete
    63. I think your discussion will go farther if you stop referring to the ban as a "large capacity magazine ban." While the ban does include large capacity magazines, most of what it will affect is the normal capacity magazines (12-17 rounds depending on the gun).

      Normal capacity is defined as the amount of rounds the gun is built to hold without extending the magazine.

      ReplyDelete
    64. Joan - Sebastian is right that it really isn't hard to find some "gun owners" that will support almost anything you name as long as they don't think it will impact them. As someone else said, people that are sometimes called "Fudds" will happily throw everyone else under the bus as long as you're not coming for their "sniper rifle".. er... hunting rifle.

      I'm not sure it really proves anything finding such people. It's also been pointed out that while you can find such people it doesn't actually translate into political support. As I asked in a previous post, where are the protests in the street? Where is the real grassroots calls for this? Anywhere?

      Since it hasn't been said yet, I don't understand the point in getting nasty with someone who holds a different opinion. I can understand getting frustrated and annoyed, but see little point in taking it out on a personal level. I also do have to commend you as, so far as I know, you're the only person on your side of the issue to actually engage and stick around. Everyone else who has tried this folded up immediately. We may not agree, but at least you've stuck around.

      jdege is 100% correct. Were we ever to let the rights of the minority be dictated by the majority we would be well and truly screwed as a free society.

      ReplyDelete
    65. Senator Herbert Humphrey did say this:

      “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” – Know Your Lawmakers; Guns Magazine, February, 1960

      This may be the quote that P was paraphrasing.

      ReplyDelete
    66. "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
      -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

      Took me all of five seconds to find it under second Amendment quotes, Humphrey

      How can you not agree with FACTS?

      You may not want to admit it but FACTUAL EVIDENCE does not support your side. Neither did JFK.


      "Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." (From President Kennedy's message to Roosevelt Day commemoration, 29 January 1961.)
      "
      "

      ReplyDelete
    67. Gail- It is someone in that gun magazine who said that Hubert Humphrey said that. There is no reference to where or when he said it. I even went to the national Library of Congress and they could find no such quote. So I say it is a bit questionable.

      ReplyDelete
    68. P- It's not a fact. That's the thing. I have looked everywhere and can find nowhere a reference to where or when Humphrey may have said this which is attributed to him. If someone can find me something original, other than what someone in a gun magazine said Hubert Humphrey said, I might believe it. See my response, above.

      ReplyDelete
    69. Lots of quotes from hunters who are fine with banning things they don’t own. That doesn’t make me feel any better given that I have never hunted and never will (unless I am starving).

      Japete: “Now if you think you must have your large capacity magazines on you at all times for that evenetuality, then I guess you will feel like someone is taking away your rights. These things are bulky and hard to carry around, right?”

      My normal magazine is 17 rounds. They can be modified to hold 10 rounds to be compliant with state laws or the ‘94 AWB by adding blockers but they are they exact same size. It is important to remember that the majority of items banned under McCarthy’s bill are not extended magazines. Did you ask your gun friends how they feel about 11 round magazines? Honestly, since they ONLY care about duck hunting, I don’t expect them to care much about 11 rounds either.

      ReplyDelete
    70. My friends are duck hunters, bear hunters, deer hunters, grouse hunters and other big game as a matter of fact.At least one goes to a shooting range and shoots pistols for fun. They care about large capacity ammunition magazines because they know how dangerous and unnecessary they are. It's as simple as that. I wouldn't subscribe any other reason to what they say other than their own words.

      ReplyDelete
    71. I wonder if your pistol shooting friend has magazines that carry over 10 rounds. They are entitled to their opinion, but it is certainly not going to carry any more weight with me just because they own some guns. I respect your position more than gun owners who don’t care about bans so long as it doesn’t affect them personally. Like I said, I am not a hunter. What would their impression of my opinion be if I called for bans on all guns/cartridges that have more than 1500 ft-lb of muzzle energy? I don’t need any more than that to punch holes in paper, and it is certainly enough to stop a man in a self-defense situation.

      ReplyDelete
    72. Joan - Your friends, while I'm sure they're find upstanding people, are clearly not all that concerned about self defense, tyranny, or any of that. That's fine. Happy for them. However, trying to prove a point by asking them about these restrictions would be like asking a Temperance supporter about alcohol. It proves exactly nothing.

      You've made a fair deal out of whether we can "prove" that we "need" 10+ round magazines. I don't subscribe to the idea that we need to prove a "need" of anything we want to do/own to the government, or anyone else, so long as we're not harming anyone else in the process. Yet, you asked and I will attempt to answer.

      Scenarios which already have occurred:
      Civil Unrest
      Natural Disaster
      Resisting corrupt government

      Two of those have happened in this country in several cases and the last one has happened in at least one instance I can think of off the top of my head.

      Possible Scenarios:
      Large scale civil unrest (Larger than the cases above)
      Economic Collapse
      Governmental Collapse
      Other cases which are just variations on those themes.

      Are they likely? Hope not. It would be very unwise to say "It can't happen here." I don't really think some of those are likely to happen in the near future. Yet, that doesn't remove them from the realm of reasonable possibility. After all, it's all well and good to say "call the cops" as long as the police are actually still functioning.

      Common everyday scenarios:
      Shooting at the range (yeah, reloading every 10 rounds is a real pain in the rear. Try it sometime and you'll see what I mean. :) )
      Shooting competitions (including IDPA, ISPA, Three Gun, and others)

      So there are a few examples. I should point out that in a general debate it is incumbent upon the side wishing change from the status quo to show how they're change is positive. When one is tinkering with fundamental, even if you don't see it that way, rights you don't really get to just wave your hand and claim that the majority agrees with you and that's that. Such logic has been used to justify all kinds of things, most of which were notoriously bad. If your side wants to make serious changes to the way things are now, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for explanations as to exactly your proposed changes are supposed to achieve the stated goals. If your side cannot do that, perhaps you should reconsider your position?

      ReplyDelete
    73. TS - You forgot to call for a ban on "sniper rifles capable of defeating body armor" while you're at it. :)

      (For those who may read and don't know, pretty much any centerfire rifle can easily defeat soft body armor as such armor wasn't designed for rifles. To protect against rifles you have to use ceramic plates or other hard armor. Thus any hunting rifle will easily defeat soft body armor.)

      ReplyDelete
    74. Actually Atrius- it is incumbent upon your side to now prove why ammunition magazines over 10 rounds are absolutely necessary for self defense. It is not "fundamental" as you say it is, to have 30 round ammunition magazines. What does that mean? Nowhere in the Constitution is this a fundamental right. You guys always want me to prove everything. So far, not one of you has proven to me the necessity for a 30 round magazine. Did anyone suffer anything terrible in the ten years of the AWB when you didn't have this type of ammunition? Give me one example of someone who could not defend themselves because of the AWB.

      ReplyDelete
    75. Atrius- what are you talking about in your last comment?

      ReplyDelete
    76. "The quote from Humphrey is not verifiable as true. I've researched it."

      Not very well, it seems. His remarks, as usually quoted, provide a precise cite. That makes it trivially easy to verify as true or false.

      "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible"

      Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D) Minn.
      "Know Your Lawmakers" Guns (magazine), February, 1960, p. 4.

      ReplyDelete
    77. missing the point, jdege- there is no date or place where this was said- only a reference to a column in a gun magazine saying that is what Humphrey said- no reference to a speech in which he said it or a date, etc. I told you that the quote could not be found to be attributed to him even at the Library of Congress. So I guess this will be your word against mine. I have seen the quote in several places but nothing official. Until then, I'll reserve my skeptism about it. And if it is verifiable, I would note that the quote says that there should be reasonable restrictions in spite of support for the second amendment so it doesn't prove anything for your side anyway. I don't know why you keep using it. It is useless for any argument you might have and is dragged up for- hmm- for what reason again?

      ReplyDelete
    78. For once I have to side with Japete on this one.

      Unless the cite is referring to a direct interview of Humphrey conducted by the magazine staff itself, then simply citing the quote in an article is NOT verification of the 'fact' that he ever spoke those words.

      HOWEVER, if I recall correctly the 'Know Your Lawmaker' series in Guns magazine WAS, in fact, a series of direct interviews, so I would hope, Japete, that you would accept (not assume, merely accept) the possibility, that such is the case, and as such would explain why no other reference can be found for the quote.

      As for myself, I can offer no proof either way, so I'll reserve any comment as to whether the quote is genuine or not.

      ReplyDelete
    79. Joan - A frequent claim of some people on your side is that "armor piercing" weapons are terrible things and that only criminals use them. I was illustrating that every one of your hunter friends own rifles that neatly fall into that category. Your friends are also falling prey to the misconceived idea that once the more radical people on your side are through with us, they wouldn't come after them. I don't believe you would necessarily advocate that, though some from your side certainly would.

      ReplyDelete
    80. From a long running series in Guns magazines. It was a chance for elected officials to talk with the press about second amendment issues and more.

      Source:
      "Know Your Lawmakers," Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6

      Easy to verify. It is also easy to find out that Humphrey never issued a retraction or a demand for a correction

      We use it because it shows that back then Democrats still read and understood the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      Previously you stated you didn't have the time to rewind to my posts only that you disagree. I asked how can you disagree with facts? Point out the falsehoods in my writings. History has proven my post to be a valid and correct interpretation of the facts.

      ReplyDelete
    81. "it is incumbent upon your side to now prove why ammunition magazines over 10 rounds are absolutely necessary for self defense. It is not "fundamental" as you say it is, to have 30 round ammunition magazines."

      Joan, why are you making this a debate between 10 and 30 round mags and ignoring all the standard capacity magazines?

      I'm also confused as to why you say it is for us to justify need - as you (general) are the ones proposing the new law, shouldn't it fall to you to prove that your law will do what you say? Particularly when it involves a constitutional right, it seems logical that the burden of proof should fall to those wanting to restrict that right.

      ReplyDelete
    82. Let's see if I get this right.

      Joan said:

      "I asked some friends who own guns to submit statements to me that I would use in my blog. Many said I could use their real names, but to protect them from the wrath of the gun guys on this blog, I have chosen not to do so. Here then,are their common sense statements"

      So some nameless, unattributed friends of Joan = Data

      Then Joan said:

      "there is no date or place where this was said- only a reference to a column in a gun magazine saying that is what Humphrey said- no reference to a speech in which he said it or a date, etc. I told you that the quote could not be found to be attributed to him even at the Library of Congress. So I guess this will be your word against mine."

      So now an attributed quote, in a GUN magazine = unverifiable anecdote.

      Japete, it is obvious that the quotes in this long series in GUNS magazine came from the elected officials themselves, or from their staffs with approval from said elected officials. They were never disputed by the officials themselves, then or now...

      They are only questioned...now...by you.

      ReplyDelete
    83. Actually Atrius- it is incumbent upon your side to now prove why ammunition magazines over 10 rounds are absolutely necessary for self defense. It is not "fundamental" as you say it is, to have 30 round ammunition magazines. What does that mean? Nowhere in the Constitution is this a fundamental right. You guys always want me to prove everything. So far, not one of you has proven to me the necessity for a 30 round magazine. Did anyone suffer anything terrible in the ten years of the AWB when you didn't have this type of ammunition? Give me one example of someone who could not defend themselves because of the AWB.


      No it is not incumbent on our side to say we need anything.

      It is incumbent on the lawmakers to prove that keeping it from us has a greater good.

      This is the fundamental difference between "us" and you. The actions by an extreme few do not supply a "need"'worthy of denying the masses liberty and freedom.

      We do not have to furnish a reason why you should not limit our freedom. Clearly and unequivocally the Bill of Rights was clear on this. The while inspiration of the Bill of Rights was to severely and permanently restrict the power of the federal government.

      You ask why we keeping you to prove things, that's because feelings have no place in lawmaking. You do not have a Constitutional right or a human right to feel safe or happy. You do have a Constitutional right not to fear the Government.

      Instead of asking us to prove why we might need something in the future, we ask simply prove to us that despite having years of antigun laws on the books which do not stop crime, we still have areas where people want to make more laws, and expect us to accept that somehow these laws are different from all others which have gone on before and will somehow work.

      For one hundred years NYC has been saddled by the Sullivan Acts, and these laws which strip law abiding Citizens of their right to self defense have done nothing to reduce crime. How can any right-thinking person think this law is going to work differently?

      ReplyDelete
    84. You said you'd researched this. Have you actually read the column? Can you tell me of your own knowledge that it doesn't provide a place and time, of where these words were spoken or written?

      If you've not read the column, then you've not "researched" it, in any meaningful sense.

      ReplyDelete
    85. Hopefully to end the debate I think I ordered the magazine in question. Hopefully I will have it early next week and will update you on the whole article. E-bay to the rescue

      ReplyDelete
    86. This might warrant a new topic. I just found and interesting video on how machine guns were regulated in the first place. It is interesting to watch how sausage is made.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

      ReplyDelete
    87. Atrius-"more radical people on your side are through with us, they wouldn't come after them. " What????? This is pure and simply nonsense. My friends have not fallen prey to me or anyone else on "my side" They understand perfectly well what I am about and they support me. For you guys to now try to say that anyone with a gun who agrees with me simply does not understand what I'm up to is blather and shows the lengths "your side" will go to make excuses for the fact that you are in the minority.

      ReplyDelete
    88. P- I just love it when you guys send me "facts" that don't turn out to be facts. So I read things that present me with actual facts. There is no sense getting into a back and forth about something that doesn't matter to the debate. Now- "back then" Democrats understood the Constitution? So now they don't apparently. We are so ignorant on my side that we don't understand anything, I guess. When you can verify where and when Hubert Humphrey said what he said in the gun magazine, then I'll consider it. As I said, I went to the Library of Congress in D.C. and looked it up. They couldn't find a source for that quote other than the gun magazine. I'm done with this argument anyway. It's stupid and proves nothing one way or the other. When you guys start making comments about the big picture rather than picking away at things like this, then we can move forward.

      ReplyDelete
    89. No Heather. Your side is in the minoriity on this one. It is up to you to find reasons why you need those 30 round ammunition magazines for self defense. You haven't come up with that yet.

      ReplyDelete
    90. Nonsense Gail- I never said my friends were politicians or people in elected office whose quotes would become "famous". The fact that you guys are throwing a quote from a famous politician into the ring and it can't be verified that he said it or where or when Humphrey said this other than in a gun magazine is quite different.No, they are not only questioned by me. The Library of Congress could not find this quote from Hubert Humphrey. I'm done with this one. It is only meant as a distraction from the issue at hand. You guys are really good at that one.

      ReplyDelete
    91. "It is up to you to find reasons why you need those 30 round ammunition magazines for self defense. You haven't come up with that yet."

      Sorry, but no.

      The burden of proof is on the government, in this case and in every case. For the government to be justified in imposing any restriction, whatsoever, on anything, it must be able to provide clear evidence that it will result in a significant public benefit.

      And you've no evidence whatsoever.

      ReplyDelete
    92. Ignoring truth again, the real reasonable thing to do


      The facts I asked you to dispute were the failure of gun laws to stop crime. Be it northern Ireland, south Africa, DC, NYC,

      Myself and others provided a source for the quote, it was readily found and it was early enough in Humphreys life that he would have had plenty of time to refute it had he desired.

      Ask the LoC if they can find it now that it has a publication date. Google "know your lawmaker" and read that it was a decades long series of columns. Far more legitimate a source than the unquoted and unamed sources you list daily. Heck it's far more legitimate a source than mayors against illegal guns.

      Everytime you find yourself losing the argument you claim to be tired of it and "want to move forward", then blame us for being ugly. That's a load of rubbish. We have been calm and even headed, logical and restrained, trying to lay factual evidence out for discussion. Yet it becomes clear you have no desire for logical or reasonable discussion as you have made up your mind and refuse to discuss. "because I said so" doesn't work in parenting or debate.

      ReplyDelete
    93. P- I find the argument useless and ridiculous and a dead end. There is no pupose in keeping it up. You guys are like bull dogs. You grab onto something and you won't let go until you have either cowered your opponent or tired them out with your persistence. It won't work with me so I wonder why you keep trying. But go ahead if you want. I am not publishing more comments about Hubert Humphrey for the reasons stated above.

      ReplyDelete
    94. Joan said "Atrius-"more radical people on your side are through with us, they wouldn't come after them. " What????? This is pure and simply nonsense. My friends have not fallen prey to me or anyone else on "my side" They understand perfectly well what I am about and they support me. For you guys to now try to say that anyone with a gun who agrees with me simply does not understand what I'm up to is blather and shows the lengths "your side" will go to make excuses for the fact that you are in the minority."

      Joan, I didn't say that they had fallen prey to you. I specifically said: "I don't believe you would necessarily advocate that, though some from your side certainly would." Thus discounting the idea that you yourself were advocating such a thing and removing the possibility of your friends falling prey to you. Further, when I say that there are more radical members of your movement who would go after your friend's "harmless hunting rifles" that is known fact. I stipulated right in my statement that your friends are unaware of such radical elements so obviously they wouldn't attribute them to you in the first place. I have to ask whether you really read this post or my previous one or merely responded based on half of it. I realize you're busy with all these comments as there is just one of you and several of us.

      You also continue to say that no one has given you any examples of why someone would want/need 10+ round magazines. In my previous post I gave no less than 11 reasons/scenarios right off the top of my head and didn't even go out into wingnut territory to get them. Did you not read them either or did you just dismiss them out of hand?

      I realize this post may sound angry but that isn't the spirit in which it is sent. Though, I do admit a very slight annoyance that you don't seem to really be reading/hearing what I and others are saying. If that isn't the case I apologize.

      PS: Why are we still debating some quote? Is it really that important either way? Even if it is attributed incorrectly does that change its message?

      ReplyDelete
    95. japete: "No Heather. Your side is in the minoriity [sic] on this one. It is up to you to find reasons why you need those 30 round ammunition magazines for self defense. You haven't come up with that yet."

      This is simply not true. Any first year law student knows that the burden is always on the government. It may not be a strong burden in some cases, but that is where it lies.

      If you won't believe a pro-gun attorney, then ask some of your new inters at Brady--I met a couple last week who had just taken the bar exam and would have reviewed this fact.

      ReplyDelete
    96. Atrius- can you give me an example of someone on my side who is currently saying they want to go after gun rights and rights to own handguns? I'm just not seeing it and I am in the loop of these folks. Or is this something your side is saying my side is saying. I am reading and listening. Forgive me if I have to skim some of the remarks. It would be a full time job to read every comment made here. Some I turn off at the beginning because of the nature of the comments. As to your question about why we are debating a remark made many years ago- that is my question as well. I was done with that one a long time ago but some on your side keep bringing it up and trying to prove me wrong. It is very annoying. So I agree with you on that one. Tell that to your buddies who are continuing to distract with the back and forth about the quote. It is not I who brought it up. I am countering the veracity of the quote because it is used by those on your side to try to prove some point which I can't begin to understand.

      ReplyDelete
    97. Listen- I understand that the burden of proof in the law is on the government once a law is passed. I am saying that now the burden is on your side to prove that the law should not be passed because you believe you need those ammunition magazines for self defense. And since you have not proven that, or at least not that I have seen anyway, the burden should be for your side to prove why the law should not be passed. My side is presenting the burden by presenting the law for consideration. I am not a lawyer nor would I assume to know the law but I do know who I can go to for answers to these questions. So I did and here is an answer about the burden of proof:" The original high-capacity magazine ban had a specific provision making it clear that if a defendant asserted he had possessed the magazine before the ban went into effect (and thus his possession was grandfathered), the government had the burden of showing that he did not. It further provided that if the magazine in his possession did not have a serial number, it was presumed not subject to the ban. This provision was not included in H.R. 308, thereby giving rise to the argument that current possessors will be put in jail unless they can prove they possessed the magazine before the ban.

      But in any criminal prosecution, it is the government's burden to prove the offense. Thus under H.R. 308, it still will be the government's burden to show the magazine was not possessed by the defendant before the ban and the government will have great difficulty meeting this burden if the magazine is not serialized, since all high-cap magazines made after the effective date must be serialized. Thus, the original provision on burden of proof was unnecessary and its omission from H.R. 308 is inconsequential."

      ReplyDelete
    98. No Joan

      Passing a law requires clear and compelling evidence that the greater good will be improved by it's passage

      What further evidence is needed than the law was passed once before and failed? The DOJ said it failed, William Jefferson Clinton said it failed.

      Prohibition of alcohol failed miserably. Why? Because it was not supported by the people. The AWB failed as well, because the people unstood it to be ridiculous and a sham and thus it was doomed. Had anyone been able to garner support for it, it might have been renewed. Clinton viewed it as a third rail in the presidential election and handed it off to Bush who said "if it can be proven that it worked, I will renew it." and there was no proof.

      ReplyDelete
    99. Joan - I can understand that you're forced by the volume of comments to skim from time to time. We both do have other things in our lives aside from this, no? That being said, I did try and answer your question as to how/why one would need/want such things.

      As to the attribution of the quote, meh. Regardless of who said it and when it does contain truth. Some of the most foolish words uttered are "It can't happen here".

      Since it would be nice to get back to the original point, I still maintain that side asking for change (whether it is ours or yours) should present logical reasons for that change.

      To wit, if I were to call for a repeal of the tax on suppressors/silencers I would offer up the following as justification:
      1. Prior to their regulation silencers were very rarely used in crime and there is no reason to expect that the removal of the tax and registration requirements would change that fact.
      2. In other countries, including ones with far tighter gun control laws, which either don't regulate or only lightly regulate such devices they are rarely used in crime. Thus strengthening the first point.
      3. Suppressors, far from what Hollywood would say, are nothing more than safety devices. They prevent hearing damage and reduce noise pollution. They cannot be used by some mythical silent assassin to shoot from the shadows and remain totally undetected.
      4. If a person is forced to defend themselves inside an enclosed area, such a device can prevent catastrophic hearing loss which could lead to a loss of working ability (depending on career) and other consequences. Thus, deregulating them could also serve a public health purpose.
      5. Deregulation would help with the ongoing problem of noise pollution by greatly reducing the noise from shooting ranges and other areas. While they do not create "hollywood quiet" they do greatly reduce the impact of the report from gunfire.
      6. There is little to no evidence that their regulation is necessary or integral to the goal of crime control as they are not useful for that purpose due to their bulk and cost. While the price would come down with regulation removed they would still likely remain more expensive than the common criminal would be willing to pay when factoring in the dubious usefulness of the device to their vocation.
      7. Suppressors were only added to the NFA in the first place as an after thought with the misguided idea of controlling poaching during the Great Depression. It wasn't really much of a problem then and is even less of one now.

      There is little logical reason to continue the registration and taxation given the above. It is in the interest of all concerned to deregulate and remove the registration requirement. QED.

      If your side want to make a change of great magnitude, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask that you present a similar styled argument to the one given above as to why your proposed change is necessary and justifiable. Your reasons can be entirely your own right up to the moment that you ask others to live by the rules you wish to create. At that moment you are in fact obligated to justify the change. You can say that we are requiring you to live by our rules, and there is a small bit of merit to that statement. However, all we ask in the area of magazine sizes is to continue the status quo as it has been for seven years since the ban and decades before the ban. You ask for change. What are your reasons?

      ReplyDelete
    100. Joan - Sorry, I didn't address your question of continuing efforts against "sniper rifles" in the previous post as it was already far too long.

      I'm not sure how many groups or individuals on your side are _currently_ calling for such bans. They usually cloak them in talk about ".50 Calibers" and use conflation to mix different types.

      See here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/sniper.htm

      They talk at length about ".50 Calibers" going on and on about their range and power. Yet almost every single point they make about ".50 Calibers", aside from the ones that are just flat out fabrications or misquotes, could easily be applied to most centerfire rifles higher than .223 caliber.

      1. Long Range
      2. High power
      3. Penetrate armor (they do limit this in one area to armor vehicles. I'm not sure if they are implying light armor or heavier like an APC would have. They aren't clear. Maybe intentionally?)

      Every one of those, depending on your definition of "armor", would also apply to "granddads .308 hunting rifle". At the end of that summary they call to "Bring heavy and intermediate sniper rifles under the control of the National Firearms Act." If a "heavy sniper rifle" is defined as a .50 caliber (the high end of the scale after all), what would you think an "intermediate sniper rifle" would be? It really could only be sub-.50 caliber rifles. To include the aforementioned hunting rifles.

      An extremely common, one your friends might even own, hunting rifle is the Remington 700. It can be bought in various calibers. The differences between a hunting R700 and the police/military version are very minor. VPC has called for the ban, or at least NFA regulation which would amount to the same thing, of such rifles in the link posted above. They don't call them by name. Yet what else could "intermediate sniper rifle" mean?

      Though, admittedly the VPC is also know for being straight up liars. Their "Why Regulate 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles?" document contains at least five straight out lies and a few exaggerations. So, you know.. can't say I would trust them even if they directly said that they would never again advocate for such bans. Doubly so since they did advocate for it in 1999 and as far as I know they didn't retract that.

      ReplyDelete
    101. 1. 30,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds every year and another 70,000 live with their injuries and possibly with life long disabilities.
      2. Gun deaths account for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd cause of injury death in most age categories according to the CDC.
      3. Some assault type rifles and ammunition were banned for 10 years.
      4. During that time, law abiding citizens did without them and didn't suffer harm as a result.
      5. We have a system in place in our country where anyone can get any kind of gun they want, no matter if they are mentally ill, a felon, or a domestic abuser for just a few. They don't need background checks in the majority of states to get these guns.
      6. Many, if not most of the crime guns traced are stolen. People and businesses do not always report stolen guns or lock their guns in a safe.
      7. 8 children a day die from gun injuries, many due to the fact that guns in the home are not safely stored.
      8. The records of dangerously ill people are not sent to NICS by all states and only since Virginia Tech has that been a law.
      9. the Brady Bill has resulted in 2 million prohibited people not allowed to purchase a gun when a NICS check is done by a FFL.
      10. Assault type rifles are not necessary for self defense nor are large capacity magazines. There are plenty of other guns for that use and for hunting.
      11. The majority of Americans in poll after poll agree with reasonable gun laws that would prevent and reduce some of the shootings.
      12. Limiting ammunition magazines will limit the carnage in shootings.
      13. If Jared Loughner had been able to reload, the carnage would have been larger and more tragic.
      14. It has been shown that some ammunition dealers contribute to the NRA and some NRA Board members serve on the Boards of some ammuntion companies.
      15. Why is the NRA so adamantly opposed to a measure that will not affect the second amendment rights of Americans?
      16. The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to large capacity magazines for the purpose of killing as many people as possible without reloading.
      17. People can use smaller sized magazines for self defense and at shooting range without inconvenience unless, as some gun owners claim, they need to be as armed at the military and the police.
      18. Limiting the magazines to 10 or 12 or whatever the smaller number is just plain the right thing to do.

      ReplyDelete
    102. Atrius- thanks for "setting me straight" You will pardon me if I don't always believe everything you guys say either. I know you would love to educate me and in many ways you have. But calling anything that my side says as a lie just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a lie. Sorry. So what are the outright lies perpetrated by the VPC?

      ReplyDelete
    103. Joan - I'll respond to your longer 18 point post here in a few minutes.. but first this...

      I can understand your not taking what we say for gospel and there is no reason you should. We do have our own interests after all. Thankfully we have the internet and we can all the claims and supposed facts that are put out there.

      As to the VPCs lies and exaggerations I will for the moment restrict myself to the document found here: http://www.vpc.org/graphics/whyregulate50s.pdf as I don't have all day to refute everything they've ever said. :)

      I shall go in the order of the document to make cross checking easier.

      General Claim 1: "Fifty caliber anti-armor sniper rifles are an ideal tool for terrorism. They are a real
      and present danger to national security, yet are less regulated than handguns."
      Category: Exaggeration
      Counter Point: Fifty caliber rifles aren't anymore of a threat than any other centerfire rifle over .223 caliber. Whereas their first specific point under this heading is true, that the .50 caliber class rifle was originally designed with long range shooting in mind it is not capable of the near magic striking ability they attribute to it. Any vehicle truly deserving the name APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) would laugh at a standard .50 caliber. A true AP (Armor Piercing) round may be able to penetrate particularly vulnerable areas on some designs of APC, you would have to be out of your mind to try and take on an APC with nothing but a bolt action rifle in any caliber short of 20mm. As such to call the rifle itself an Anti-Armor Rifle is laughable. They go on to make the claim that these rifles can penetrate concrete bunkers. I don't know exactly what they are calling a "concrete bunker". Since they didn't define it, I would go with the conventional definition of such a thing. This claim is also amusing because if you could penetrate a concrete bunker with a mere rifle why would we bother with tanks, missiles, and bunker busters? They make two claims in this that are correct. A .50 caliber can penetrate an airplane's shell and that, being a rifle, an 18 year old could buy one under federal law. Saying that those thing are correct is small consolation since the first thing can be done with almost any gun and the second is just a matter of law

      ReplyDelete
    104. General Claim 2: "Fifty caliber anti-armor sniper rifles are radically different from hunting rifles. They
      are specifically designed for great accuracy against harder targets at much longer
      distances than ordinary hunting or sporting rifles."
      Category: Exaggeration
      Counter point: I'm not going to go into depth on this one. There is nothing "radically different" about .50 calibers as compared to other long range rifles. There are others that shoot farther and hit harder. It should be noted that their claims of shooting range are generally correct. However, they are in no way unique to .50 caliber rifles. As such no additional danger is presented here.

      General Claim 3: "Fifty caliber is the largest round of ammunition generally available to civilians and
      highly destructive armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive rounds are easily
      available."
      Category: Lies
      Counter Point: The entire general claim is a lie from start to finish. Whereas there are AP, Incendiary AP and even a round which does contain some explosives in them, the claim that these are "easily available to civilians" is an outright lie. Every one of those rounds are generally banned. I've found several references to "tracer rounds" being legal but nothing about true incendiary rounds being legal. AP and Explosive rounds (of any type) are definitely not "widely available". The only thing in this part that is correct are the statements about the NFA restricting the sale of weapons which fire a round greater than 50 caliber. The technical definition is more involved than that but for the sake of argument that's close enough.

      On the last general point, they claim that various bad guys have allegedly bought these and used them for bad purposes. I can't say if that is true or not. Whether it is or not though doesn't really matter. They're never really going to show up in crime and aren't really useful for anything beyond what they were designed for. In place (not moving) shooting of relatively stationary or slow moving targets (including animals) at great range.

      ReplyDelete
    105. Joan. The Second amendment is not, nor has it ever been about hunting. Drop the arguments that if a lawmaker not interfere with hunting it passes a Second amendment test.

      The sole and only reason for the second is defense from tyranny and oppression. Be it self defense or the defense of Liberty and Freedom, that is the sole measure of the standard.

      Your request violates those two tests. Therefore it is unConstitutional. Period. We do not have to prove any other "reason".

      Had the Tucson shooter reloaded, he would have been shot by armed Citizen who was present. When he saw the shooter was trying to reload he participated in subduing him. The shooter could have simply used more than one gun if limited to smaller magazines. He could have drven through the crowd with a vehicle. But he did not.


      Your repeated reliance on tainted polls is misleading. A pollster will always get the results wanted by the person paying the bills if he wants to. The only poll that matters is that Anti gun candidates lose with monotonous regularity in elections except in a very few districts where the choices are almost historically preordained. Chicago for instance, NYC as another.

      Rep Gifford won election as a pro gun democrat. Without the support of gun owners who backed her, she would have never won reelection.

      ReplyDelete
    106. Joan - I appreciate your attempt to answer my request for reasons. As is the nature of debate, I will now attempt to refute your claims/reasons. In general though, in the future I suggest going with fewer points that link together better and build to a conclusion. This current set reads more like a laundry list of reasons and a bit disjointed. Know what I mean?
      1. While point one is granted to be true on a prima facie basis, there is no evidence presented that limiting magazine size (the specific claim to be proved) would impact this.
      2. Also, accepted prima facie
      3. Accepted as fact, with the provision that I think you meant "ammunition capacities" or something more like that. No ammunition types were banned by the AWB.
      4. This is a supposition for which you don't offer any supporting evidence. However, it is granted that I don't have reams of evidence concerning physical harm. I do stipulate that the people at large have a right to own such things and thus their rights were violated. Further, studies have indicated that the AWB had little to no impact on crime, gun or otherwise, so we have a cost to the people with no provable gain.
      5. This point is incorrect or at least not worded correctly. I believe you meant to point out the lack of universal background checks. Whereas you are correct that in most States you can buy guns without background checks, usually via a friend to friend transaction, it does not change the fact that every example you gave would still be an illegal sale. It is not legal for me to sell one of my guns to someone I know to fit into any of those categories and were I caught I could go to jail.
      6. This point is granted on the grounds that I don't have any evidence at hand right now to refute the claim of "most". You are also correct that people don't always use safes nor do they always report stolen guns.
      7. I don't know the basis of this claim, though it sounds pretty high. I would have to require a hard reference for a claim of 2920 children dead per year. That's a big number.
      8. From what I understand this point is generally true as well.
      9. While this is generally true, in that some 2 million were initially turned away, why have there been so few prosecutions for this? Even the attempt is a crime, is it not?
      10. This is pure opinion Joan. As it is opinion I can logically refute it by giving at least one realistic example: Home invasion involving two or more attackers. It has happened more than once. Further, given the somewhat flexible definition of "assault type rifle" the point becomes hard to defend.

      ReplyDelete
    107. 11. We've talked about polls before. It is probably unwise for either side to rely too much on them. Additionally, even if true, we don't let the majority dictate the rights of the minority in any other case so why should this one be different?
      12. If you are to make a claim, you need to provide some evidence of it or at least an argument of why it is true. To refute, I say that a person with lower capacity magazines can simply: 1) Bring more, 2) Bring more guns, 3) Shoot from a greater distance thus giving the time to reload
      13. Granted. But isn't that obvious?
      14. While I'm sure you're trying to prove a connection between the "gun lobby" and the NRA, that connection is tenuous. Either way, the NRA-ILA (political arm of the NRA) is active in politics. Laws and policies impact those people's businesses. It would only make sense that they would give to an organization that will help keep them from being outlawed. That doesn't sound particularly sinister or unusual.
      15. Your question is based on the opinion that restriction of standard capacity magazines doesn't affect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. The NRA, and I, disagree with that opinion and that explains their opposition.
      16. The First Amendment says nothing about computers or the Internet, and yet we clearly think those are protected. This point also contains the opinion that the only use for such things is mass murder. I believe I've shown a number of cases where that isn't true. In fact, the ratio of their use in mass murder against not mass murder can, without exaggeration, be said to easily be a million to one. As such their most common use is legit and harmless.
      17. Smaller sized magazines are, by definition, inconvenient for use at the range. As I've said before, reloading every 10 rounds is a pain in the rear. As to the part about self defense, it depends entirely on the situation. Since laws are long lasting, it is unwise to make them only for the moment and not for posterity. That being the case, they should lay the least burden on people. Today with the world as it is right now, the odds of having to defend against multiple attackers is relatively low. Yet that says exactly nothing about tomorrow. I'll say more on that in a separate post as this is already far too long.
      18. This is a statement of opinion with little to support it. I realize that you've attempted to support it throughout these 18 points but I don't believe you've made the case.

      I know I used the phrase "didn't offer any supporting evidence" a lot in this without much explanation. I'll go into that more in a minute or two.

      ReplyDelete
    108. Joan - To illustrate what I mean by "supporting evidence" or "supporting logic" I will use my example of the argument to deregulate/detax/deregister suppressors.

      Claim: It is in the interest of the people at large that we repeal the portion of the National Firearms Act to remove the registration and tax requirements from suppressors.

      Proof:
      1. Prior to their regulation silencers were very rarely used in crime and there is no reason to expect that the removal of the tax and registration requirements would change that fact. (One of the often cited reasons to keep them highly regulated is the assertion that they would be used in crime. Here I attempt to refute that using the environment prior to regulation as an example.)
      2. In other countries, including ones with far tighter gun control laws, which either don't regulate or only lightly regulate such devices they are rarely used in crime. Thus strengthening the first point. (This is said both to back point one and to illustrate that in current times we have reason to believe that the past conditions would still remain true.)
      3. Suppressors, far from what Hollywood would say, are nothing more than safety devices. They prevent hearing damage and reduce noise pollution. They cannot be used by some mythical silent assassin to shoot from the shadows and remain totally undetected. (After their use in regular crime, the next most often stated reason to keep them highly regulated is to prevent their use in assassination or other higher crimes. I could also go into examples where in real assassinations they are rarely, if ever, used. I also start laying the base for points four and five.)
      4. If a person is forced to defend themselves inside an enclosed area, such a device can prevent catastrophic hearing loss which could lead to a loss of working ability (depending on career) and other consequences. Thus, deregulating them could also serve a public health purpose. (Having already attempted to disprove the common objections I being working on laying out positive uses and purposes.)
      5. Deregulation would help with the ongoing problem of noise pollution by greatly reducing the noise from shooting ranges and other areas. While they do not create "hollywood quiet" they do greatly reduce the impact of the report from gunfire. (More positive purposes)
      6. There is little to no evidence that their regulation is necessary or integral to the goal of crime control as they are not useful for that purpose due to their bulk and cost. While the price would come down with regulation removed they would still likely remain more expensive than the common criminal would be willing to pay when factoring in the dubious usefulness of the device to their vocation. (Point six seeks to further demolish the normally stated reason for their continued virtual prohibition. It also seeks to strike at the Constitutionality of the ban under the Heller/McDonald implied standard of strict scrutiny.)
      7. Suppressors were only added to the NFA in the first place as an after thought with the misguided idea of controlling poaching during the Great Depression. It wasn't really much of a problem then and is even less of one now. (Tossing in one more attack against the original stated reasoning for their regulation)

      I could have also added points on the racist/class based nature of the law (requiring an amount of money out of reach of the lower classes/minorities).

      I believe I've covered most of the logical objections which are usually raised to suppressor availability. A person could claim that they fail the "in common use" test which was hinted at in Heller. The counter to that though is that argument is circular because you cannot justify a ban on something simply by saying it is banned (and therefore not in common use). If a person insisted in going down that road the counter would be that they are in common use everywhere they are not banned, therefore it would likely be the same here, therefore it would pass the test once the ban was lifted. QED.

      ReplyDelete
    109. The last time I checked, the Heller decision did not guarantee your right as you see it above. "The sole and only reason for the second is defense from tyranny and oppression. Be it self defense or the defense of Liberty and Freedom, that is the sole measure of the standard." They determined the right was an individual right for self defense. They didn't mention your version of it. My polling results are, of course, not tainted. At some point, you may have to accept that some polls actually come down on my side even if you don't agree with the results of the polls. Anti gun candidates did not lose with monotonous regularity in the last election. Of the 102 ( or 103) co- sponsors of the gun show background check bill, only 2 lost re-election.

      ReplyDelete
    110. Atrius- I am not tired of the he said she said argument. It is doing no good. Let's call a truce and move on. We will not agree on much of the above anyway and it is just annoying me beyond belief that you feel compelled to come back point by point on every single word I write. Take a break. I know I'm going to .

      ReplyDelete
    111. To all: I would argue that debating polls is useless for both sides as the common rejoinder about asking the right questions is true and goes for both sides. Further, as a society rights should never under any circumstances be determined by polls or even, dare I say, popular vote. The majority should never be allowed to legislate away the rights of the minority. You cannot legislate away rights. Period.

      So, can we not bother with polls anymore? :)

      ReplyDelete
    112. I would add that if you think you can win by being verbose and overly analytical, it doesn't work with me.

      ReplyDelete
    113. No Atrius- I won't agree to that.

      ReplyDelete
    114. "atrius said...

      Counter Point: The entire general claim is a lie from start to finish. Whereas there are AP,

      Incendiary AP and even a round which does contain some explosives in them, the claim that these are "easily available to civilians" is an outright lie. Every one of those rounds are generally banned. I've found several references to "tracer rounds" being legal but nothing about true incendiary rounds being legal. AP and Explosive rounds (of any type) are definitely not "widely available".
      "

      Sorry atrius...gotta run the BS flag up the pole on this one.

      Last gun show I went to there were several CRATES of .50 BMG tracer, AP, and API rounds, belted and loose, for sale right out there on the floor for all to admire.

      Granted they were on the order of $10 per round, but they were there, for sale, and not restricted by the BATFEieio in any way shape or form.

      The rest of your post is however, as far as I can tell, spot on.

      ReplyDelete
    115. Wordsmeanthings - Intersting.. the tracer rounds wouldn't surprise me at all.. but real AP and API rounds would very much surprise me.. of course.. they can stick whatever sign they want on them.. do you recall what they looked like? beyond the obvious "really bloody large".. haha

      ReplyDelete
    116. Yes indeed. They are very large. I had an opportunity to see and hold one of those .50 "bullets" if you can call them that.

      ReplyDelete
    117. The last time I checked, the Heller decision did not guarantee your right as you see it above. "The sole and only reason for the second is defense from tyranny and oppression. Be it self defense or the defense of Liberty and Freedom, that is the sole measure of the standard." They determined the right was an individual right for self defense. They didn't mention your version of it. My polling results are, of course, not tainted. At some point, you may have to accept that some polls actually come down on my side even if you don't agree with the results of the polls. Anti gun candidates did not lose with monotonous regularity in the last election. Of the 102 ( or 103) co- sponsors of the gun show background check bill, only 2 lost re-election.Unquote

      Sigh. Heller did not lay out the scope of the Second. Ask any first year law student the SCOTUS only answered the direct question placed in front of it. Did the Second amendment invoke an individuals right to own and keep a handgun for personal self defense.

      That's it. That was the question asked and the answer given.

      Your portrayal of the Second is like saying because in "Miami herald vs Tornillo" the court ruled on free speech of the press, that the First is only limited to for profit media.

      Read the federalist papers. Understand why things are written as they were.

      Your logic is beyond comprehension.

      ReplyDelete
    118. With the guns Chambered for .50 caliber BMG going for several thousand dollars and ammo at well over $5 a shot clearly this is not gangbanger material.

      With regards to it's ability to pierce airplane fuselage skins. Well a twelve year old with a screwdriver could do that. It's only a few hundredths of an inch thick. Most are about .040" skins. That's twice the thickness of a tuna can wall.

      ReplyDelete
    119. Maybe beyond your comprehension, P, but is shared by many. Remember, many people do not share your views.

      ReplyDelete
    120. Not that it is relevant but it was brought up in the discussion, I have located the quote made by Hubert Humphrey and published in the Feb 1960 issue of Guns magazine.
      http://commongunsense.net/2011/01/hubert-humphrey-in-1960/

      ReplyDelete
    121. So Gail, did you feel the need to take the name of my blog on purpose after I started blogging? Just curious as to how you came to the name of your blog. Nice name.

      " One of the blogs that is against firearm owner’s civil right’s..." Also nice. Once again, it's hard to respond with seriousness to this spurious claim.

      I have seen the reference to that magazine and looked at the site you provided. I'm sure you don't believe that it was in the actual Library of Congress where I looked and that attempts were made to find the quote through other sources.

      ReplyDelete
    122. Joan said:
      "I have seen the reference to that magazine and looked at the site you provided. I'm sure you don't believe that it was in the actual Library of Congress where I looked and that attempts were made to find the quote through other sources."

      Joan, where did I say that I believed it was in the actual Library of Congress?

      What I did was actually go to the source of the quote and posted it.

      Yes, I got the idea for my blog after you accused me of trying to trick you and talk about you on my gun blog. But I didn't have a gun blog at the time so I made one, I'm glad you like the name.

      "Guns" and "common sense" are both commodities associated with America. They do go well together, don't they?

      Please come and visit my blog. Unlike my experience with you when I first visited YOUR blog, I promise I won't ban you from MINE.

      ReplyDelete
    123. So, the Guns Magazine quote doesn't provide a cite.

      Some of the quotes on the web specify a date of 22 October 1959. Where was HHH on that date?

      Who was he speaking to?

      ReplyDelete
    124. jdege - I can appreciate the drive to prove a point. However, does the authenticity or non-authenticity of the quote really matter?

      ReplyDelete
    125. I just got the mag today and come to find that it was posted previously :( I wonder what the advantage of misquoting HHH in 1960 would have got Guns magazine?

      ReplyDelete